The High Court has dismissed Maura Harrington’s judicial review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to grant Shell E. & P. Ireland Limited a revised licence for activities at the Corrib gas terminal in Bellanaboy Bridge, County Mayo.
In a judgment delivered on 21 November 2017, Mr Justice Binchy rejected Harrington’s challenge to the licence, issued on 8 October 2015. The application had sought to quash the licence and obtain other relief, including orders relating to environmental impact assessment. The court dismissed the proceedings in their entirety and declined to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Harrington was the only applicant to continue the case at trial. The first, third and fourth applicants had withdrawn in February 2017. She represented herself after the court refused her request for an adjournment to instruct a new legal team.
A central argument was that the Corrib Gas Field Development required a single, integrated environmental impact assessment covering the whole project. The EPA’s assessment concerned the activities within its statutory remit, including operation of the gas refinery and emissions. Justice Binchy held that the law did not require one authority to conduct a single assessment of the entire project. The court was satisfied that the EPA assessed the licensed activities as designed to operate, and that Harrington had not established a specific shortcoming showing the assessment failed to meet the applicable requirements.
The judgment also rejected the claim that a 2011 European court ruling made earlier assessments or consents invalid. Justice Binchy said the ruling identified a gap in Irish law concerning the EPA’s ability to require an environmental impact statement in certain circumstances; it did not invalidate earlier consents. The court also found the challenge to the increase in the suspended-solids limit for stormwater discharge at point SW2 had not established that the EPA’s appropriate assessment was deficient. The Inspector’s report, technical committee report and EPA meeting minutes provided reasons for the change, including the proposed treatment method and safeguards for water quality.
Harrington argued that the 2007 licence had expired before the EPA reviewed it. The judgment records that Shell notified the EPA in November 2014 that operations had commenced, and that the EPA had not issued a notice that the licence had ceased to have effect. The court held that such notice was required under the legislation for the licence to cease, so this ground also failed.
Justice Binchy concluded that Harrington had not established entitlement to any of the relief sought. The application was dismissed in full.