A County Monaghan group opposing overhead electricity pylons will not have to provide security for EirGrid’s legal costs before continuing a damages action arising from an abandoned planning hearing.
County Monaghan Anti-Pylon Limited was formed in May 2010 to oppose the proposed above-ground Meath-Tyrone 400kV interconnector through Monaghan and to advocate an underground alternative.
EirGrid had applied to An Bord Pleanála in December 2009. An oral hearing began on 10 May 2010. On its 23rd day, EirGrid announced that the process could not continue because newspaper advertisements had misstated the height of the proposed pylons. The application was withdrawn and the hearing ended without a planning decision.
The anti-pylon group subsequently sued EirGrid. It claims EirGrid owed objectors a duty not to cause them to spend money participating in a planning process that was terminated because of EirGrid’s own alleged negligence. The High Court made no finding on whether that claim will ultimately succeed.
The group said about €100,000 had been raised and spent before incorporation and a further €150,000 afterwards. Expenditure included legal representation and about €41,000 on an expert report comparing overhead and underground interconnection. It argued that the abandoned hearing exhausted resources which otherwise could have funded participation in a future application.
EirGrid sought security for costs because it was accepted that the company could not pay EirGrid’s costs if its action failed.
Mr Justice Charleton held that security will normally be available where a company cannot meet a possible costs order and the defendant shows a sustainable defence. However, special circumstances can justify refusing it.
The judge found there was sufficient evidence at this stage that the abandoned hearing had caused the group to waste resources raised for its planning participation. He held that this was capable of constituting such a special circumstance.
The application for security for costs was therefore refused. The underlying negligence action remained to be decided.