Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Supervision

Corby families win High Court toxic waste case COMMENT ON THIS STORY

12.15pm update

View Video
Download Video

Video

Listen to Chris Mallender give his raction to the High Court ruling
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 29 July 2009
Corby Council was responsible for birth defects in 16 children born in the 1980 and 1990, the High Court has ruled.
Two youngsters born after 1997, will not be able to sue the authority because Judge Mr Justice Akenhead ruled there was no negligence after this time.

This is the first time that, following the negligent release of toxic material into the atmosphere, a court has found that this material can be inhaled and ingested by pregnant women and is capable of causing serious birth defects to their children.

What do you think of the High Court ruling? Let us know your views by signing-in and posting your comments at the bottom of the page.

Following the judgement David Wilby QC, leading the counsel for the claimant children, said: "The defendant has throughout, strenuously denied any fault and relied heavily on its expert witnesses to justify its conduct."

The judge wholey accepted the claimants' parents' account of the conditions in Corby during the works to redevelop the former steal works site.

He described the parents as wholey honest, giving their evidence in a dignified way.

Corby Council had denied that it was negligent during the works at Corby's former British Steel plant between 1985 and 1999 and that there was a link between the removal of waste to a quarry north of the site and deformities affecting hands and feet.

Council chief executive Chris Mallender said: "We are obviously very disappointed and very surprised at the outcome of this trial.

"Our position has always been that there was no link between the reclamation work that was carried out in Corby in past decades and these children's birth defects. That is still our position."

He said the council recognised mistakes were made and accepted some of the criticism but said they had still not seen evidence to confirm a causal link between the work and the defects.

He added: "However, now is not the time for a knee-jerk reaction.

"In the next few days we will be reading the lengthy judgment very carefully and talking to our legal advisers before we decide what our next steps should be."

The legal bill for the council so far has been £1.9million but the authority now faces a £4.7million bill from the claimants' legal teams.

A decision over whether to appeal the decision will be made by the full council at a later date.

In a statement issued after today's judgment, the council's legal representatives Berrymans Lace Mawer said they were surprised by the findings of the court.

The statement said they were asked to advise on an appeal but had over 400 pages of judgment to review and also their client, Corby Borough Council, had to consider its position. The firm said it would be a few weeks before it has instructions.

The statement added: "There are however some clear points to note at this stage.

"The case involves reclamation work going back to the 1980s. The judge concluded that this contamination affected pregnant women. A child, so affected, has 21 years from birth to make a claim and thus any work since the late 1980s which has not met the standard of care indicated in this judgment could be challenged in this way.

"For both local authorities and developers alike this is a significant concern because the standard of care has been drawn very highly, and could cause a rethink of the way that reclamation is carried out in the UK even though the facts of the case are historic."

The claims have been described as the British Erin Brockovich and the ruling is considered to be a land mark one.


In his lengthy judgment - which ran to 919 paragraphs - the judge said there was a "statistically significant" cluster of birth defects between 1989 and 1999. Click here to read more.


Outside court, the families expressed their delight at the outcome of the Corby toxic waste court case. Click here to read more.


Corby Borough Council, which was responsible for the reclamation of a former steelworks, was found liable for birth deformities at London's High Court. Click here to read more.




Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 29 July 2009 1:34 PM
  • Source: n/a
  • Location: Kettering
 
Prev
1
2 3
1

RNG,

Corby Old Village 29/07/2009 11:15:00
If the Council are not covered for this kind of thing how are they going to settle the claims ?. Raise everyone's Council Tax and cut back on services. Result!!.
2

SarahSarah,

Corby 29/07/2009 12:06:15
Well in that case RNG, it's just a normal day in Corby. They need to be held responsible for this as it CANNOT happen again. They should be hit in the pocket as that's all these authorities care about. It's the only way.

Let's say, for instance, someone injures you badly. They deny doing it, but are found guilty. That person is forced to pay you compensation, but doesn't have it, would you accept that? What if it happened to your child? Would you accept it then?
3

MissChelle,

29/07/2009 12:14:21
Well done to all the kids of Corby, your Mums & Dads and your families who have endured this fight for more than a decade.
And don't worry about Corby Council trying to divide the people (taxpayers) of Corby from celebrating in this historical victory with you. Before we became 'taxpayers', we are your family, friends, neighbours, colleagues etc!!

JUSTICE!!!
4

RNG,

29/07/2009 13:03:19
Sarah, MissChelle, The point I was trying to make was that if the local authority have got to pay out millions in legal fees and compensation payments and perhaps pay for an appeal then at some point they are going to want to recoup some of that money and being a local authority that could mean spending cut backs and council tax increases .
5

PFT, Corby,

Northants 29/07/2009 14:01:48
Once again, we see the cost that families and the community as a whole have to bear as a result of the second rate council who were in place some 20 years ago.
6

bobs kid,

29/07/2009 14:25:51
good im glad they won!! corby council is a nightmare a deserve all they get!
7

stoner,

29/07/2009 14:30:58
my family and myself are also taking corby council to court over an on going dispute.we are at the moment instructing a barrister.my comment is that althou we had a local solictor they would not take on the case?your paper also ran a front page story but would not look at our side of things?it seems to me that when you fight a local authority you have to go out of town for help.WE WILL WIN and wonderd if your paper would publish my story when this happens i very much doubt it.Conflict of intrest what rubbish .i will be there to watch it all come crashing dowm.
8

The Larkins.,

...Club Tropicana 29/07/2009 14:57:19
If there's any pay-outs in this particular case, it should come from those involved in running the Council at that period of time. They are the ones who should pay up. That won't happen though. The Council back then wouldn't even entertain building a Pool, the Cube, a PROPER rail link etc etc etc. The Council back then were happy to fleece us all, go on jollies to China, etc etc at our expense but more sadly at the expense of the deformed children. The majority of people running the Council now are a totally new breed, their attitude is not what it was back then... apart from three or four 'old school' current Councillors, I'm sure most people who take an interest in local politics will know who I mean.
9

thegoodoldboysfromsaga,

29/07/2009 14:57:43
Was the waste not from BSC? should they not be liable also.
10

thegoodoldboysfromsaga,

29/07/2009 15:03:02
If I dump waste the Corby Council Environmental Bailiff is at my door quicker than Jensen Button, with a fixed penalty notice. No Appeal, No Consultation & No Sympathy ! So pay up Mallender & Co and start recovering the costs by sacking the Jobsworths & Fat Cats.
Prev
1
2 3

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.