Derek Achong

Se­nior Re­porter

derek.achong@guardian.co.tt

A res­i­dent of Chase Vil­lage, Cara­pichaima, has suc­ceed­ed in his law­suit against the En­vi­ron­men­tal Man­age­ment Au­thor­i­ty (EMA) for al­low­ing a con­crete batch­ing plant to op­er­ate in his com­mu­ni­ty with­out a Cer­tifi­cate of En­vi­ron­men­tal Clear­ance (CEC). 

De­liv­er­ing a judg­ment on Mon­day, High Court Judge Na­dia Kan­ga­loo up­held Ever­ton Phillip’s case against the au­thor­i­ty and Cen­tral Con­crete and Pumps Ltd. 

While Jus­tice Kan­ga­loo or­dered the com­pa­ny to cease its op­er­a­tions and ap­ply for a CEC un­der the pro­vi­sions of the En­vi­ron­men­tal Man­age­ment Act, she grant­ed a stay un­til Jan­u­ary 26, next year, to give it and the au­thor­i­ty time to con­sid­er an ap­peal chal­leng­ing her find­ings. 

In his court fil­ings, ob­tained by Guardian Me­dia, Phillip’s lawyer, Kings­ley Wales­by, claimed that a con­crete batch­ing plant was first es­tab­lished in Phillip’s com­mu­ni­ty in 2003.

The fol­low­ing year, Phillip sub­mit­ted a com­plaint to the Town and Coun­try Plan­ning Di­vi­sion (TCPD) over the fa­cil­i­ty op­er­at­ing in a res­i­den­tial com­mu­ni­ty. 

Af­ter in­ves­ti­gat­ing the com­plaint, the TCPD in­di­cat­ed that it was un­able to take any en­force­ment ac­tion against the fa­cil­i­ty and sug­gest­ed that Phillip make a com­plaint with the EMA. 

Phillip fol­lowed the ad­vice, but the EMA in­di­cat­ed that it would not be pur­su­ing the com­plaint and that it had closed its file in re­la­tion to the mat­ter. 

Phillip then made sev­er­al com­plaints to the Om­buds­man over the EMA’s han­dling of his com­plaint. 

In Oc­to­ber 2014, Phillip made a fresh com­plaint to the TCPD and the EMA af­ter a new crush­ing plant was in­stalled at the fa­cil­i­ty. 

Wales­by claimed that al­though the EMA’s in­ves­ti­ga­tor rec­om­mend­ed that en­force­ment pro­ceed­ings be com­menced over the fail­ure of the plant’s own­er to ob­tain a CEC, the EMA en­tered in­to a con­sent agree­ment, un­der which the com­pa­ny was di­rect­ed to take var­i­ous mea­sures and pay $22,410.49 in le­gal costs.

The com­pa­ny was al­leged­ly not in­struct­ed to cease its op­er­a­tions un­til it ob­tains a CEC. 

Last year, Phillip and his neigh­bours re­port­ed to the EMA that they con­tin­ued to be af­fect­ed by the dust gen­er­at­ed by the plant. 

The EMA di­rect­ed the com­pa­ny to take fur­ther mea­sures to mit­i­gate the is­sue, in­clud­ing in­stalling dust screens. 

In April, the EMA grant­ed the plant’s op­er­a­tor a CEC. 

In an oral judg­ment on Mon­day, Jus­tice Kan­ga­loo ruled that the EMA’s de­ci­sion was il­le­gal, ir­ra­tional and in breach of pro­ce­dur­al fair­ness. 

She quashed the CEC that was grant­ed by the au­thor­i­ty while the case was still pend­ing and or­dered the com­pa­ny to make a fresh ap­pli­ca­tion. 

Jus­tice Kan­ga­loo al­so up­held Phillip’s claim for dam­ages, which will be as­sessed by a High Court Mas­ter at a lat­er date. 

The EMA was or­dered to pay his le­gal costs for pur­su­ing the lit­i­ga­tion. 

Phillip was al­so rep­re­sent­ed by Stephanie Ra­jku­mar. The EMA was rep­re­sent­ed by Ian Ben­jamin, SC, Tekiyah Jorsling and Rachel Ramood­ith. 

Shiv Shar­ma rep­re­sent­ed the com­pa­ny.