The High Court has allowed farmer Thomas Deegan to discontinue his challenge to the designation of the Nore Valley Bogs as a Natural Heritage Area, and made no order as to costs. The court found that a national review leading to the bog’s planned de-designation had made the legal dispute moot, but was not an action directed at Deegan or prompted by his proceedings.
Deegan owns about 380 acres of bog near Roscrea, Co Tipperary. The Minister designated certain bog lands, including the land at issue, under a 2003 Natural Heritage Area order. In 2007, the Minister advised Deegan to stop using his bog lands. Deegan alleged that restrictions had deprived him of profits and caused continuing loss and damage.
His 2011 High Court proceedings challenged the order on several grounds, including that it was beyond the Minister’s powers and unconstitutional. He also claimed damages for alleged breaches of his rights. The case was brought while a separate statutory compensation arbitration was stayed; that arbitration could resume after the High Court proceedings ended.
The Government’s 2014 peatlands plan provided for a national reconfiguration of Natural Heritage Areas. The Department wrote to Deegan in February 2014 saying the Nore Valley Bogs order would be de-designated because the site was no longer required to meet national conservation objectives. The judgment records that a process to bring about de-designation would follow.
Deegan argued that the planned change made his challenge moot and sought his costs, saying the defendants’ policy change had brought that about. The defendants opposed paying his costs. They argued the review was a national process unconnected to the litigation and that his damages claim remained live; they also sought their own costs if he discontinued.
Mr Justice Gilligan held that the intended de-designation overcame the cause of action as pleaded and rendered the legal issues moot. He rejected the argument that the damages claim survived independently: it flowed from the challenge to the order. He also found no applicable exception to the mootness rule, as the dispute was not a test case and there were no other affected individuals whose rights required clarification.
On costs, the judge concluded that neither side was directly responsible for the event that made the case moot. The de-designation arose from a national review and fresh assessment of environmental circumstances, rather than from the proceedings or a concession to Deegan. The court granted leave to discontinue and made no order as to costs. It did not determine the original challenge on its merits or award compensation.