The High Court has declined to order Dromada Windfarm (ROI) Ltd to remove high-voltage cables laid across land owned by farmer Denis Cremins, despite finding that the company’s cables amounted to trespass. The court said Cremins should be compensated, but did not decide the amount or make a final order on how compensation would be assessed.
In a judgment delivered on 14 July 2023, Mr Justice Mark Sanfey said the wind farm operator had accepted at the hearing that the cables crossed land belonging to Cremins, including part of the grass verge beside a public road. The cables, laid in or around 2009, connect nine turbines to the national grid. The disputed section crosses about 250 metres of Cremins’ land.
The company sought to keep the cables in place and prevent Cremins from interfering with them. Cremins sought their removal and damages. The court said he was prima facie entitled to an injunction because of the trespass, but considered whether the circumstances justified refusing removal.
Cremins first raised the alleged trespass through solicitors in 2016 and issued separate High Court proceedings in 2017. Those proceedings were not advanced. From 2019, he repeatedly threatened to remove the cables himself. In December 2020, he excavated the verge and exposed part of the cable ducting. The company later obtained interim and interlocutory orders restraining interference with the cables; Cremins did not object to the interlocutory order at the time.
Justice Sanfey criticised both parties’ conduct. He found that the company’s earlier denials and its approach to the injunction application were less than frank about ownership of the verge. He also found that Cremins’ threats to dig up live cables were unsafe and intended to pressure the company into negotiations. The court said the evidence showed no practical effect on Cremins’ use or enjoyment of the land, while removal would disrupt the wind farm and cause substantial losses.
The judge concluded that the appropriate result was no order directing removal, with compensation to be established through a further process. He expressed no view on whether the compensation should be large or small. He invited written submissions within 10 days on whether the existing restraint should become permanent, access for repair or maintenance, arrangements for compensation or mediation or arbitration, and costs. He reserved the possibility of a further hearing. The judgment therefore did not settle those matters.