The High Court has refused Andrew Clarke's applications for costs protection and extensive document discovery in his judicial review arising from a €2,400 Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland solar PV grant.
Clarke, who is representing himself, is challenging a February 2025 decision by the Office of the Ombudsman concerning SEAI's requirement that his micro-inverter solar system have an emergency isolation or shunt switch.
SEAI inspected the installation and issued a re-works notification. Clarke maintains that his micro-inverter system automatically shuts down when mains electricity is lost and that the relevant electrical standard, I.S. 10101, does not require the additional isolation arrangement in his circumstances. SEAI's position is that its Code of Practice requires automatic emergency isolation for all solar PV configurations participating in the grant scheme.
The Ombudsman did not uphold Clarke's complaint. It accepted SEAI's interpretation for the purposes of assessing administration of the scheme and considered that resolving the underlying technical engineering dispute was outside its role.
Clarke subsequently obtained leave from the Court of Appeal in November 2025 to pursue judicial review of the Ombudsman's handling of his complaint. The substantive case remains unresolved.
In the present applications, Clarke sought a protective costs order which would limit his exposure if he loses. He cited his limited means, the Ombudsman's estimated legal costs of about €30,000 and what he said were wider issues affecting solar grant recipients and Ombudsman complainants generally.
Ms Justice Phelan refused that request. She found the litigation was primarily directed at Clarke's own installation, grant and complaint and did not meet the exceptional threshold for public-interest costs protection.
The judge also refused Clarke's request for discovery of all Ombudsman-SEAI communications. She held that the pleaded questions about disclosure, fair procedures and the Ombudsman's statutory obligations were principally legal issues capable of being decided from the existing record. Discovery could not be used to search for possible new grounds of challenge.
Both interlocutory applications were therefore refused, leaving the underlying judicial review to proceed.