Judgment: 2006-07-11 · Court archive

Supreme Court rejects Louth residents’ bid to challenge Sellafield authorisations in Irish courts

Supreme Court ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Constance Short
  • Mary Kavanagh
  • Mark Dearey
  • Olann Herr (Plaintiff)
  • Ireland
  • Attorney General
  • British Nuclear Fuels plc
  • Mr Justice Fennelly
What

Supreme Court rejects Louth residents’ bid to challenge Sellafield authorisations in Irish courts

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • County Louth
  • Sellafield
  • Irish Sea
  • Supreme Court
  • High Court
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Mr Justice Fennelly rejected that argument. He held that the 1996 decision had deliberately left the regulatory issue open.

The Supreme Court has ruled that Irish courts cannot determine the validity of British regulatory decisions authorising operations at the Sellafield nuclear site, rejecting an appeal brought by four County Louth residents.

Constance Short, Mary Kavanagh, Mark Dearey and Olann Herr began proceedings in 1994 against Ireland, the Attorney General and British Nuclear Fuels plc. They alleged that operations at the THORP nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in Cumbria caused or threatened pollution of the Irish Sea and risks to health in County Louth.

Their case included claims that European rules requiring an environmental impact assessment and justification for radiation exposure had not been complied with. They sought declarations and injunctions against BNFL.

The Supreme Court had earlier ruled in 1996 that the Irish courts could hear claims framed in negligence and nuisance concerning alleged harmful effects experienced in Ireland. The plaintiffs argued that this earlier ruling also settled the question of jurisdiction over their European-law regulatory claims.

Mr Justice Fennelly rejected that argument. He held that the 1996 decision had deliberately left the regulatory issue open.

The court then upheld a later High Court ruling that Irish judges could not determine whether British planning permissions or discharge authorisations were lawful. Although the plaintiffs said they were not directly asking the Irish courts to quash those decisions, the Supreme Court found that their argument necessarily called their validity into question.

Mr Justice Fennelly said the legality of administrative decisions made under UK law was a matter for UK courts. Allowing courts in another state to review them would create risks of conflicting rulings and enforcement problems.

The ruling does not dispose of the residents’ separate tort claims. The Supreme Court expressly confirmed that Irish courts retain jurisdiction to determine negligence and nuisance claims based on alleged damage in Ireland.

The appeal was dismissed and the High Court order affirmed.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review