A plastic sheeting manufacturer has offered to provide temporary accommodation to a neighbour who claims that her and her family’s health have been damaged by excessive noise generated at the facility.
Ita Madden, from Viginia House, Lough Gowna, Co Cavan, has brought High Court proceedings against Xtrupak Limited, which makes and distributes extruded thermoplastic sheeting for the print, packaging and display markets.
As well as suing the company, Ms Madden’s action is also against Darragh Reilly, John Reilly Snr, Christine Reilly and John M Reilly who it is alleged are directors of Xtrupak.
Ms Madden, who previously obtained permission from the High Court to serve short notice of her injunction application against the company and its directors, has sought the order because of the levels of noise and air pollution being generated by the defendants’ premises.
Dancing with the Stars 2025: Who are the contestants, when is it on and more
The Legend of Sparrow Robertson: The last sportswriter in Nazi Paris
Joe Humphreys: Lessons in philosophy from Sally Rooney’s latest novel that can help us make sense of the world
If we really wanted to be good and healthy in 2025, we’d resolve to pester our politicians
Her property borders the defendant’s facility, the court heard.
In her action, Ms Madden seeks orders from the court restraining the company from continuing with any commercial activity around its premises at Lough View, Loch Gowna until all works and modifications sought by her have been completed to her satisfaction.
Expanded operations
She claims that the levels of noise generated from the plant exceeds the conditions in the defendant facility’s planning permission. The plant has been in operation since 2012, but it is claimed that there was no serious problem with noise levels until January of this year, when the defendant allegedly expanded its operations.
Ms Madden claims that the increase in noise levels has resulted in her and her family having their lives severely disrupted and upset, and that their health has suffered.
In a sworn statement, Ms Madden said in relation to her home that what had once been her “heaven, I can only truthfully describe as my living hell for the past few months”.
The company’s machines, she claims, had been running 24/7 and had adversely affected her family’s health. She claims that on occasions she has had to sleep in her car in order to get away from the noise.
Ms Madden said that she contacted the defendants with a view to finding a resolution. While some discussions had taken place, she said that any steps taken by the defendants had made no difference to reducing the levels of noise.
Her claims of excess noise were supported in a expert’s report she commissioned into the alleged nuisance, the court also heard.
When the matter returned before the High Court on Tuesday, Mr Justice Brian O’Moore was told by lawyers for the defendant that while they were prepared to contest the injunction application if required, the defendants’ preferred option was to come to an arrangement with Ms Madden.
Potential lay offs
Daniel McNamara Bl, for the defendants, said that more than 44 people would be at risk of being laid off if the injunction sought by Ms Madden was granted. However, counsel said that his client was actively taking steps to address her concerns regarding the level of noise from the defendant’s premises.
Those works would take several weeks to complete and counsel said his clients are prepared to offer Ms Madden accommodation until the noise alleviation works are completed.
In response, Ms Madden, who represented herself in the action, asked the court for time to consider everything that had been proposed by the defendants in their response to her application. In particular, she was seeking time to see if a solicitor would be prepared to represent her in the action.
Mr Justice O’Moore agreed to adjourn the matter to a date later this month and encouraged the parties to continue to seek to resolve the matter.