The High Court upheld an ESB notice allowing a temporary diversion of an existing 110kV electricity line across land owned by Killross Properties Ltd in Easton, Co Kildare. It found that ESB and Eirgrid could enter the land for surveys and that ESB could carry out repairs and alterations to existing lines, including the diversion work.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Hedigan on 19 December 2014, dealt with an ESB and Eirgrid plenary action and Killross’s judicial review challenge to the wayleave notice. The court said survey work and restringing that could be done without a temporary diversion had already taken place under earlier court orders. Those matters remained relevant to costs, while the principal outstanding dispute concerned the temporary line.
The proposed diversion was intended to allow work on three existing 110kV lines. The court understood it would remain in place for about four months and then be removed. The existing lines’ route and supporting structures across the land would not change. The temporary diversion was needed to maintain electricity supply while lines sharing structures were de-energised for the restringing work.
Killross argued that the notice had been served by a separate company rather than ESB, that the process lacked fair procedures, and that the notice did not adequately describe the works. The judge found that Eoin Waldron, who signed the notice, was an ESB employee working in its ESB Networks business unit and was authorised to issue it. The court declined to consider a delegation argument that had not been pleaded or specifically raised in written submissions.
On fair procedures, the judge held that the statutory seven-day notice was sufficient in the circumstances and that Killross had no entitlement to advance notice of the notice itself. The judgment also found that Killross had received information and opportunities to raise concerns, and that Mr Waldron had considered its representations. The court said arguments about moving or putting the line underground were outside the issue raised by this notice. It concluded that no further hearing was required in the circumstances.
The court rejected the challenge to the notice’s form, finding that the notice, attached schedule and map together described the temporary line, its position and how it would be placed. It said the statutory right to compensation did not need to be stated in the notice. The court’s reasoning described interference with the land as limited and said compensation was payable for any loss.
The court concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to enter and remain on the land to investigate, repair or alter lines for the project and to erect the temporary diversion. The judgment does not specify a compensation amount or resolve its assessment.