2020 Question 1 — LawShortcut Independent Model Answer

Scenario summary

Back in 1990, Local Authority Z mistakenly issued A Ltd with planning permission to construct and run a recycling plant on a rural site. Relying on that permission, A Ltd spent €250K acquiring the land and a further €1M putting up the facility. The plant opened in 1991, turned profitable in 2000, and from then on generated €100K in profit each year.

During the summer of 2018, faulty operating procedures caused the plant to release toxic material. The contamination went unnoticed for a fortnight before the danger was identified. Mr B, a farmer next door, contracted a lung condition that put him in medical facility U, and his cattle herd, worth €250K, was contaminated and had to be destroyed.

Mr E, another neighbour, worked as a delivery driver earning €30K a year and also took in €250 per week in unreported cash from taxi work. He shared his home with his partner Ms F and their four-year-old son, Master G. Mr E developed a serious respiratory illness, was admitted to the ICU at facility U, placed in an induced coma and hooked up to a heart monitor. The monitor failed and Mr E died. That device had been built in China in 2010 by XY Ltd, meeting the highest Chinese domestic standards of the day but not EU or US standards; Q Ltd, a German firm, brought it into the EU and distributed it there in 2011; and V Ltd supplied such monitors to Irish hospitals, facility U among them.

Ms F and Master G learned of the death over the telephone, went to see the body at the mortuary, and are both now under psychiatric care. Mr H, a further neighbour, also needed intensive care. Facility U operated a policy under which final-year medical students watched over the heart monitors. Student I could not interpret the digital display and did not respond when an alarm sounded. A nurse eventually stepped in, but by then Mr H had sustained serious brain injury from heart failure and lack of oxygen, leaving him in a permanent vegetative state.

The emissions also forced the nearby shopping centre to shut for a period. An auctioneer based there lost €10K in commission, and a nearby café lost €5K as foot traffic dropped.

Candidates are asked to advise on the position of Local Authority Z; A Ltd's exposure to B, E and H, with quantum where it arises; Ms F and Master G and who they might sue; medical facility U; XY Ltd, Q Ltd and V Ltd; and the auctioneer and the café in any action against A Ltd.

This is a LawShortcut scenario summary written in our own words. For the exact examined wording, use the official King’s Inns paper linked above.