The High Court has refused an application by a family in Connacht seeking an injunction restricting neighbouring farmers from using pesticides and slurry near their home.
Ms Justice Emily Farrell delivered judgment on 14 November 2025 in proceedings brought by M.A. and S.M., who live with their 15-year-old daughter. They sought an interim buffer zone of about 100 metres around their property pending a full trial.
The plaintiffs alleged that three neighbouring landowners were using pesticides and, in one case, slurry in a way that was causing health problems, damaging property and putting the family’s lives at risk. The first and second defendants acknowledged using authorised pesticides but denied doing so improperly or maliciously. The third defendant did not appear, and the court was not satisfied that he had been served.
The court accepted for the purposes of the application that the plaintiffs suffered from the medical conditions described in their affidavits. However, no medical or scientific evidence was produced linking those conditions to pesticide or slurry exposure caused by the defendants.
The judge noted that the pesticides at issue were legally authorised for use and that the regulations governing them were not challenged in the proceedings. Material from the Department of Agriculture stated that authorised products undergo safety assessment before being placed on the market.
The court also rejected reliance on unsupported assertions about the health of neighbours, deceased local residents, pets and storm-damaged trees. Some averments concerning the defendants’ wives were struck out as speculative and hearsay.
Ms Justice Farrell held that the plaintiffs had not established even the relatively low threshold of a fair question to be tried on the alleged causal connection between the defendants’ actions and the claimed harm. She also refused interlocutory relief concerning alleged abusive behaviour and threats, which the defendants denied.
The injunction application was dismissed. Costs were provisionally awarded to the first defendant, with the second defendant to receive legitimate expenses and outlay, but enforcement of those costs was stayed until the underlying proceedings are determined.