The High Court has granted ESB and EirGrid an interlocutory injunction allowing them to enter John Commins’s land in County Galway in connection with the Dalton-Galway 110 kV loop line. The orders remain in place pending trial and are subject to the plaintiffs giving the usual undertaking as to damages.
The application sought to restrain Commins from obstructing ESB’s entry to build the line under statutory wayleave powers. It also sought access for both companies to make inquiries and inspect, monitor and approve construction. The judge said ESB was entitled to orders in the terms sought, as Commins did not pursue his challenge to the planning permission in this application. The central contested question was whether EirGrid had statutory power to enter the land.
Planning permission for the line was granted by An Bord Pleanála on appeal in June 2006. Galway County Council extended its duration to 6 June 2016. The judgment records that the land was mistakenly mapped as belonging to a neighbouring owner during pre-planning work in 2004. As a result, Commins’s father, then the registered owner, was not identified as having an interest in the planning application and had no opportunity to participate or object. The ESB also mistakenly served a wayleave notice on the neighbour in 2009.
The ESB entered the land on 3 March 2010 without first serving a wayleave notice on its owner. A boundary stone wall was knocked down and later reinstated from the neighbour’s property. The ESB acknowledged the trespass and apologised. The plaintiffs’ position was that any damage had been fully reinstated. The judgment notes that Commins could bring separate civil proceedings for trespass damages, in addition to any compensation entitlement under the wayleave notice served on him in May 2010.
Commins argued that the planning permission was invalid because his predecessor had not been involved in the process. His counsel accepted that its validity could not be challenged in these proceedings; that would require judicial review under the Planning and Development Act 2000. The possibility of a separate application was not ruled out.
The judge held that section 20(4) of the Electricity (Supply) Act 1927 powers had vested in EirGrid to the extent needed for its exclusive transmission-system functions under the 2000 Regulations. EirGrid’s requested access to inspect, monitor and approve construction fell within those powers. The court also found damages inadequate for the plaintiffs and the balance of convenience in favour of an injunction. The ruling is interlocutory; it does not determine the underlying action.