The Supreme Court dismissed Peter Sweetman’s appeal over a planning condition requiring security for the eventual reinstatement of the Corrib Gas Terminal site, finding that the appeal had become moot after the outstanding arrangements were completed and accepted by Mayo County Council.
The appeal arose from a 2006 High Court decision dismissing Sweetman’s application under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. By the time of that hearing, he was pursuing claims that Shell E&P Ireland Limited had not complied with conditions 1 and 37 of its planning permission. Condition 37 required security for restoring the terminal site when activity ceased, with the form and amount to be agreed with the Council.
The High Court found substantial compliance with condition 37, while acknowledging that formalities remained. Sweetman appealed in April 2006, seeking a declaration that the condition had not been met and an order restraining further development if compliance was not promptly achieved. The appeal then remained dormant for about eight years. By the time it came before the Supreme Court, the terminal had been built and the first gas from the Corrib field had been brought ashore.
Shell and the Council entered a reinstatement agreement and parent-company guarantee on 16 August 2011. The Council wrote six days later that it considered the terms of condition 37 complied with. Sweetman disputed the adequacy of the agreement and guarantee, including provisions concerning when operations would cease and how disputes would be resolved.
The Court said the condition left the form and amount of security to be agreed between Shell and the Council. Because the Council was not a party to the appeal, Sweetman could not use these proceedings to challenge its decision to accept the arrangements, and the Supreme Court would not substitute its own view of what security was appropriate.
The judgment also addressed the delay. The Court said that delay in pursuing an appeal seeking injunctive relief can increase hardship to the other party and weigh against granting relief. The trial judge had separately concluded that, even if there had been a breach, he would have refused relief in his discretion; that conclusion was not appealed.
With the formal arrangements completed, the Council satisfied with compliance, and no live controversy remaining between the parties, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It did not order the terminal shut down or determine the merits of Sweetman’s objections to the detailed terms of the reinstatement agreement and guarantee.