AFTER one of the longest and most expensive cases in English legal
history, Rechem International has finally fought off a Scottish dairy
farming couple's claims that their pedigree Ayrshire herd was ''wiped
out'' by toxic incinerator fumes.
In their David and Goliath battle, Andrew and Irene Graham alleged
toxic emissions from the incinerator at Bonnybridge, Stirlingshire,
between March 1982 and its closure in October 1984 caused catastrophic
illness in 300 of their pedigree Ayrshire cattle.
However, Mr Justice Forbes, at the end of a 323-page written judgment,
said: ''I am left in no doubt that Rechem is not responsible in any way
for the ill-health that afflicted the Grahams' dairy herd in the
1980s.''
The case had lasted 198 days in court spread over 14 months and ran up
a legal costs bill estimated at #3m -- half of which falls on the Legal
Aid Board.
Permission to have the case heard in England was obtained after the
Grahams ran into trouble obtaining legal aid in Scotland.
After the judge had handed down his judgment -- he said it would have
taken him 12 to 13 hours to read out -- Mr Graham, 61, said he was
''fairly disappointed''. He added: ''Twelve years of fighting has been
worth it to get it into court.''
His wife, Irene said: ''We are extremely disappointed. This is our
life. I definitely felt someone had to do something. We stood up for
what we believed in.''
Their solicitor, Mr Anton Bates, said the judgment would be studied in
detail to decide the prospects for a successful appeal and to see how it
affected other cases pending against Rechem.
He added that the Legal Aid Board, in agreeing to back the Grahams'
case, had recognised the public interest in the safe incineration of
toxic waste.
Rechem's parent company, Shanks & McEwan, said: ''We have been very
confident right from the outset and, of course, we are delighted with
today's outcome.
''It confirms that there was no link between the operations of the
former Bonnybridge plant and Mr and Mrs Graham's farming and livestock
problems of over a decade ago.
''On a personal level, we can sympathise with the stresses the Grahams
have been under but earlier detailed studies and eminent scientific
evidence stated that there was no basis for their assertions that the
Bonnybridge plant had been responsible for illness among their cattle.
''Despite this, the claim, funded by legal aid, proceeded, culminating
in an extremely time consuming and costly trial. We are very satisfied
that, in the end, the Grahams' allegations and their claim for damages
have been proved to be unfounded.''
Mr Graham and his 44-year-old wife, based at Tambowie Farm, Milngavie,
near Glasgow, also grazed livestock at West Bankhead Farm, Denny, two
miles from Bonnybridge.
Suing Rechem for negligence and nuisance, they alleged that fall-out
from the incinerator containing toxins such as PCBs and dioxins was
ingested by their cows which developed illnesses including as eye
defects and died or had to be destroyed.
Rechem argued that the problems arose from poor husbandry. It alleged
that the Grahams ''wrought havoc with the health of their herd'' by
grossly overfeeding the cattle in an attempt to boost milk yields and
alleviate their debt crisis, resulting in ''fat cow syndrome''.
The company, which said it closed the plant for economic reasons,
insisted it took the greatest care to incinerate waste at very high
temperatures to destroy chemicals, and stringent measures were taken to
contain harmful effluent.
Mr Justice Forbes held that the incinerator did not emit toxins ''in
anything other than negligible quantities throughout its operational
life and certainly not in sufficient amounts to pose any kind of risk to
either animal or human health''.
The judge said he was satisfied that, on a broad view, the incinerator
was operated and managed by Rechem in a ''generally satisfactory
manner''.
He accepted Rechem's contention that the Grahams' herd was afflicted
by an outbreak of ''fat cow syndrome'', largely as a result of excessive
feeding of concentrate to lactating animals.
The main, if not exclusive, reason for the over-feeding was the desire
to boost milk production and increase income.
''There was also the need to ensure that the farm obtained a high milk
quota,'' he said.
The Grahams claimed other farmers in the district had also suffered
unusual problems.
However, the judge said the evidence demonstrated ''beyond any shadow
of a doubt'' that none of the neighbours suffered any significant or
unusual health problems in the period 1980 to 1984, let alone any
problems that could plausibly be attributed to chemical contamination.
The secretary of local pressure group Scottie -- the Society for the
Control of Toxic and Troublesome Emissions -- said that, despite losing,
the Grahams had done a great service to Scotland.
Dr John Wheeler, a science teacher at Grangemouth High School, said
that by bringing the case they had highlighted the disposal of hazardous
waste as an area for public vigilance.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article