The High Court has allowed a discovery application in a nuisance case brought by a couple living near the Gibbet Hill Wind Farm in County Wexford, ordering discovery across all four categories sought. The court said the parties still had to address the wording and period of the order, the name of a discovery deponent and costs.
The plaintiffs allege that noise, vibration and shadow flicker from the wind farm interfere with their use and enjoyment of their home and land. They seek injunctions and other relief, including damages. The defendants deny causing the alleged effects or that any emissions intrude on the plaintiffs’ property as claimed. They plead that the wind farm was built and operated in compliance with planning permission.
The application sought unprocessed operating data for the six turbines; noise and vibration measurement material, including recordings and monitoring data; records of the defendants’ response to the plaintiffs’ complaints; and records of their engagement with Wexford County Council, including their assessment of the RPS report commissioned by the council.
The judge noted that the parties’ expert evidence would be important at trial. The defendants accepted that the first two categories were relevant, but argued they were not necessary because the plaintiffs had assembled their own evidence. The judge found that the turbine source data should be available to both sides’ experts, helping them identify areas of agreement and disagreement. He also found no serious argument that producing the material would be unduly burdensome, costly or commercially sensitive.
The judge found the third category relevant and necessary because the defendants’ response to the complaints was a live issue, including in the plaintiffs’ claim for aggravated damages. He likewise found the fourth category relevant to assessing the defendants’ response to the council’s interactions and enforcement actions. He noted that there was no current enforcement notice, so the defendants’ asserted privilege against self-incrimination on that basis did not need consideration. The judge said privilege might apply to some documents, but still ordered discovery in the terms sought.
The ruling decided the discovery motion, not whether the alleged nuisance occurred or whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the substantive relief or damages they seek. The court invited the parties to agree the order’s wording and related matters within 14 days, or submit brief written positions if they could not agree. Costs remained unresolved.