Judgment: 2025-11-05 · Court archive

High Court keeps live challenge over seven-year wait for Cullenagh wind farm information

High Court, Planning & Environment · [2025] IEHC 593

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • People Over Wind
  • Commissioner for Environmental Information
  • Mr Justice Humphreys
What

High Court keeps live challenge over seven-year wait for Cullenagh wind farm information

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Cullenagh
When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 30 April 2026

    The court initially decided in principle to refer questions on that issue to the Court of Justice of the European Union. A reference was later registered as Case C-96/26, but was withdrawn on 30 April 2026 after the judge concluded that the causes of the delay had not been fully argued and required further examination.

  • 8 May 2026

    The second amended judgment, dated 8 May 2026, therefore does not finally decide whether the remittal caused unlawful delay. The case was listed again for 11 May 2026 to determine the next procedural steps, including whether a fresh EU reference should proceed.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Mr Justice Humphreys rejected People Over Wind’s argument that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to do that. He held that the power to annul a decision under the Access to Information on the Environment Regulations can carry an implied requirement for the public authority to reconsider the request where no final substitute decision is made.

The High Court has kept alive a legal challenge over delays in resolving a request for environmental information about Coillte’s proposed Cullenagh wind farm in Co Laois, almost seven years after the request was first made.

People Over Wind sought documents in November 2018 including the project’s business case, economic analysis, board papers and minutes. After refusals, internal reviews, appeals and an earlier High Court ruling, the Commissioner for Environmental Information annulled a Coillte refusal in December 2024 and sent the matter back for another internal review.

Mr Justice Humphreys rejected People Over Wind’s argument that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to do that. He held that the power to annul a decision under the Access to Information on the Environment Regulations can carry an implied requirement for the public authority to reconsider the request where no final substitute decision is made.

The court also rejected complaints that the Commissioner had given inadequate reasons or breached fair procedures through administrative communications with Coillte which were not copied to People Over Wind.

The unresolved question is whether using remittal in this case was compatible with EU-law requirements that environmental information procedures be timely and effective. The original request remained unresolved at the main hearing on 20 October 2025.

The court initially decided in principle to refer questions on that issue to the Court of Justice of the European Union. A reference was later registered as Case C-96/26, but was withdrawn on 30 April 2026 after the judge concluded that the causes of the delay had not been fully argued and required further examination.

The second amended judgment, dated 8 May 2026, therefore does not finally decide whether the remittal caused unlawful delay. The case was listed again for 11 May 2026 to determine the next procedural steps, including whether a fresh EU reference should proceed.

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