The High Court has refused the State respondents’ application to postpone a judicial review hearing challenging the inclusion of the Shannon LNG terminal and connecting pipeline on the European Union’s Projects of Common Interest list. The substantive hearing is to begin on 30 June 2020, as scheduled, and is expected to last three to four days.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons delivered the ruling on 3 April 2020 after considering written submissions and affidavit evidence. The application was decided on the papers, without an open-court hearing. The parties had been invited to request an oral hearing; none did. The notice party, Shannon LNG Limited, made no submission on the adjournment request.
The State respondents—the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and the Environment, Ireland and the Attorney General—said departmental officials needed more time to prepare opposition papers. An affidavit from Department Principal Officer Kevin Brady described a small team responsible for energy security policy that was also working on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on gas and electricity supplies. It said staff were working remotely and lacked access to some paper and digital files. Earlier correspondence had proposed moving the hearing to October 2020.
Friends of the Irish Environment opposed the delay. Its submissions questioned whether much of the evidence the State might file was factual, and said the State had not identified which files were inaccessible, to whom, or when access might be restored. It also suggested the hearing could take place remotely.
Justice Simons said the judicial review appeared likely to turn largely on legal questions, including whether the High Court could refer issues about the EU list’s validity to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The State respondents argued that the applicant should have challenged the list directly before the EU General Court and that the time limit for doing so had expired. The judge said those objections would require serious consideration at the substantive hearing; he did not decide them in this ruling.
The court also noted that the applicant’s claims concerned, among other matters, EU decision-making, an alleged absence of a sustainability assessment, compliance with the Climate Change and Low Carbon Act 2015, reasons for the decision and public participation. These were allegations and issues for the substantive proceedings, not findings made in the adjournment ruling.
Recognising both the pandemic pressures on officials and the public interest in resolving the challenge promptly, Justice Simons extended the State’s filing deadline. Opposition papers are due on 12 May, the applicant’s submissions on 26 May, the State’s submissions on 9 June, and hearing papers on 23 June. The court said it would be flexible about whether the hearing proceeded remotely or, subject to the parties’ views, on the papers. The only order made in this judgment was to dismiss the adjournment application; the underlying judicial review remains to be heard.