The High Court has refused Maura Harrington’s application for judicial review of the Minister’s consent to operate the Corrib natural gas pipeline, finding she had not shown that the decision was unlawful or irrational.
Mr Justice MacGrath’s judgment concerned the consent granted on 29 December 2015 under the Gas Act 1976. The application sought to quash that consent and included challenges to the environmental impact assessment and the screening process for an appropriate assessment under the Habitats Directive.
Harrington was the sole remaining applicant. Three other applicants had withdrawn from the proceedings in 2017. The case was a judicial review of the operating consent; the court said its role was to assess the lawfulness of that decision, not to rehear the merits of the wider Corrib project or revisit earlier permissions.
Harrington argued that the project required one integrated environmental assessment covering its components and cumulative effects. She also challenged the Minister’s reliance on reports prepared by Ramboll, argued that a Stage 2 appropriate assessment was required, and criticised Condition 2 of the consent, which required management plans for certain maintenance activities. The respondents and Shell E & P (Ireland) Limited, the notice party, disputed those claims.
The judge held that the environmental impact assessment directive did not require a single authority to carry out one overarching assessment. He said the Minister had material before him, including Ramboll’s environmental impact and screening reports, and that the applicant had not provided specific evidence establishing a shortcoming or illegality in the assessments. The court also found no sufficient basis to conclude that the Minister acted irrationally by adopting the screening report or deciding not to proceed to a Stage 2 assessment.
The court rejected the claim that using consultants amounted to unlawful delegation, noting that the Act allowed the Minister to have regard to and adopt reports prepared by consultants and other advisers. It also rejected the challenge based on the timing of public notification, finding no established legal basis for invalidating the consent on that ground.
The judge declined to refer a question to the European Court of Justice, saying Harrington had not identified a point of EU law requiring its guidance. The court refused the application for judicial review. The judgment did not quash the consent.