Byrne v ABO Energy: Annualised General Damages and Full Injunctions for Wind-Farm Noise – An Irish Blueprint for Balancing Nuisance Rights and Climate Policy

Introduction

On 5 June 2025 Mr Justice Oisín Quinn delivered the landmark High Court judgment of Byrne & Moorhead v ABO Energy Ireland Ltd & Ors ([2025] IEHC 330). The case, brought by a couple living 1 km from a six-turbine wind-farm in rural County Wexford, raised five principal questions:

How should damages be measured for a past noise nuisance when no physical damage has been caused?
Was there also a breach of constitutional rights (Arts 40.3 & 40.5)?
Should the court order a full shutdown, or permit continuing daytime operation on payment of damages (partial injunction)?
Were aggravated damages warranted?
Were exemplary damages warranted?

“The true value of a person’s home … cannot be fairly measured by its capital value.” — Quinn J, para 7

Ultimately the Court:

Awarded annualised general damages (€10k p.a. to the first plaintiff, €15k p.a. to the second) for twelve years, totalling €300,000.
Granted a permanent injunction shutting down the three offending turbines.
Awarded aggravated but not exemplary damages.

In doing so, it rejected the orthodox English method of valuing loss purely by reference to a notional reduction in market value (Hunter/Dobson), and clarified how the Irish courts will weigh private nuisance against the State’s climate-action imperative.

Summary of the Judgment

Liability – All three defendants admitted nuisance midway through the six-week trial.
Past damages – Instead of capital-value loss, the Court used a per-plaintiff, per-year tariff, reflecting severity, duration and personal impact.
Future relief – No right to “buy a licence to continue a nuisance”; absent credible mitigation evidence, only a full shutdown would suffice.
Aggravated damages – €24k and €36k because the defendants “were dragged kicking and screaming” and ignored offers of technical solutions.
Exemplary damages – Refused, the permanent shutdown and aggravated damages being a sufficient deterrent.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Patterson v Murphy [1978] – Irish authority for awarding separate general damages for annoyance, discomfort and distress.
Hanrahan v Merck Sharp & Dohme [1988] – Established “objective reasonable person” test for nuisance; damages may be awarded for offensive smells.
Hunter v Canary Wharf & Dobson v Thames Water (UK) – Defendants relied on these to argue damages are limited to depreciation of land value.
Shelfer v City of London Electric (1895) and Lawrence v Fen Tigers (2014) – Framework for when damages may be substituted for an injunction.
Fearn v Tate Gallery (2023, UKSC) – Leggatt J’s four questions on remedy guided the Court’s evaluative matrix.
Munnelly v Calcon [1978] – Restitutio in integrum, damages must be fair and reasonable.
Environmental & climate cases: Coolglass (Humphreys J, 2025), Verein Klimaseniorinnen v Switzerland (ECtHR 2024).

2. Legal Reasoning

(a) Measuring Past Damage

Quinn J held that capital-value methodology “attaches too much significance to the capital value of a person’s home”. It risks constitutional inequity: two families suffering identical intrusion could receive wildly different sums purely because one house is worth more. Instead, he introduced an annualised, plaintiff-specific tariff, calibrated by:

Intensity and character of the noise (low-frequency tonality & upwind amplitude modulation labelled “outlier” and “extreme”).
Duration (12 years of almost daily intrusion).
Individual impact (greater award to the second plaintiff due to health vulnerability and time spent at home).

(b) Constitutionality

While the nuisance undoubtedly engaged Arts 40.3 (property) and 40.5 (dwelling), the common-law remedy was “adequate and flexible”. Consequently no separate constitutional damages were required — a reaffirmation of Clarke v O’Gorman.

(c) Injunction versus Damages

Applying the “reciprocity” principle (Southwark v Tanner; Fearn) the Court evaluated:

Neighbourliness – Defendants ignored complaints, refused data, and rejected Nordex’s 2019 mitigation offer.
Public interest – Although renewable energy is of “the utmost significance”, defendants offered no evidence of feasible intermediate measures.
Shelfer/Lawrence balance – Injury was neither small nor easily quantifiable; damages would not restore enjoyment of the home.
Defendant solvency – Insolvency of the SPV not decisive; assets could be sold, safeguarding remaining turbines.

Result: full permanent injunction on the three turbines closest to the house.

(d) Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Aggravated damages satisfied the Conway v INTO criteria:

“Oppressiveness” – 12-year indifference; data withheld from council.
“Conduct of defence” – Late admission, no mitigation plan.

Exemplary damages were refused: the shutdown plus €360k compensatory/aggravated package already delivered sufficient deterrence.

3. Impact of the Decision

New yardstick for damages – Irish courts may now favour annualised, plaintiff-focused awards over pure capital-value calculus in non-physical nuisance.
Mitigation imperative – Operators who ignore complaints may face total shutdowns; genuine, early technical engagement is vital.
Climate-nuisance equilibrium – Renewable-energy projects cannot assume a “green trump card”; public interest is a factor, never a licence.
Procedural practice – Defendants seeking damages in lieu must give timely notice and adduce mitigation evidence; silence will be fatal.
Planning & Enforcement – Local authorities may cite Byrne when pressing for SCADA data or curtailment schedules.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Wind-Turbine Noise (WTN) Features

Loudness (dB(A)) – Overall volume, adjusted to human hearing sensitivity.
Frequency / Tonality – Low-frequency hum (~160 Hz) versus mid/high swish (~500-800 Hz). Low-frequency penetrates walls more readily.
Amplitude Modulation (AM) – “Whoomp–whoomp” fluctuation as blades pass the tower; particularly annoying when irregular.
Upwind AM – Unusual phenomenon here: modulation heard even when residents are upwind, doubling exposure time.

Legal Terms

Nuisance – Unreasonable interference with property enjoyment; no need for physical damage.
Aggravated Damages – Extra compensation where defendant’s conduct in or after the wrong intensifies distress.
Exemplary (Punitive) Damages – Sum to punish deliberate, outrageous wrongdoing; rarely awarded.
Lord Cairns’ Act – 1858 statute letting courts award damages instead of an injunction.
Shelfer Test – Four factors (small injury, quantifiable, money adequate, oppressive to injunct) guiding when damages may replace injunction; now advisory, not decisive.

Conclusion

Byrne & Moorhead rewrites the remedial script for environmental nuisances in Ireland:

It centres the individual, granting each plaintiff a personal annual award that recognises lived experience, not real-estate mathematics.
It restates equity’s backbone: developers cannot purchase a licence to harm neighbours, even for socially desirable projects.
It provides a procedural roadmap: early notice, transparent data-sharing, and tailored mitigation are the price of operating near dwellings.
Finally, it shows how constitutional values of home inviolability can be vindicated within traditional tort principles, avoiding parallel constitutional causes of action.

As Ireland accelerates toward its 2030 renewable targets, Byrne v ABO Energy will serve as the leading authority on how courts will balance the green transition with citizens’ right to peace and quiet in their own homes.