The judgment extensively references several pivotal cases that shape the legal landscape of judicial review and environmental law compliance:

• North Wall Property Holding Company Ltd v. Dublin Docklands Development Authority [2009] IEHC 11: Highlighted the separation of judicial review and enforcement proceedings, emphasizing that the validity of development consent can be contested irrespective of ongoing activities.
• Commission v. Ireland (Derrybrien Wind Farm), Case C-261/18: Reinforced the principle that Member States must remedy breaches of EU law, such as failing to conduct requisite environmental assessments, even post-implementation.
• Odum v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2023] IESC 3: Clarified the traditional understanding of mootness, emphasizing the necessity for live controversies within the common law system.
• Balz v. An Bord Pleanála [2020] IESC 22: Demonstrated the interplay between judicial review and enforcement proceedings, particularly in the context of appeals against development consents.

These precedents collectively underscore the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that environmental directives are faithfully implemented and that breaches are appropriately remedied, irrespective of procedural technicalities.

At the heart of the judgment is the determination of whether the judicial review proceedings became moot due to the completion of activities authorized by the foreshore licence. The High Court scrutinized the traditional doctrine of mootness, which requires a "live controversy" for proceedings to proceed. However, the court distinguished this case by focusing on the substantive legal issues rather than the procedural status of the activities.

Mr. Justice Simons emphasized that the completion of the activities does not negate the potential remedies the court can issue. Specifically, the court can mandate remedial assessments or remediation works to address any environmental harm resulting from the non-compliance with the Habitats and EIA Directives. This approach aligns with the obligations outlined in EU jurisprudence, ensuring that breaches of environmental law are rectified even post-factum.

Additionally, the court addressed procedural arguments concerning the pleading of ancillary relief, such as the future use of survey data. It clarified that while novel relief should be explicitly pleaded, the absence of such specifics does not inherently render the proceedings moot.

This judgment has far-reaching implications for future judicial review proceedings, especially in the environmental sector:

• Affirmation of Judicial Responsibility: Reinforces the judiciary's role in upholding EU environmental directives, ensuring that failures in compliance are addressed irrespective of the stage of project implementation.
• Clarification on Mootness: Establishes that the completion of authorized activities does not automatically render judicial reviews moot, particularly when substantive legal questions remain unresolved.
• Encouragement for Due Diligence: Signals to developers the necessity of adhering to environmental assessments from the outset, as judicial challenges can still impose significant remedial obligations.

Furthermore, the judgment provides a nuanced understanding of how courts can navigate the complexities of ongoing projects and legal challenges, ensuring that environmental protections remain robust and enforceable.

Mootness in Legal Proceedings

Mootness refers to the scenario where a legal dispute has already been resolved or is no longer relevant, thereby negating the necessity for a court to render a decision. Traditionally, for a case to proceed, there must be an ongoing, unresolved controversy.

Judicial Review

Judicial review is a process by which courts examine the legality of decisions or actions undertaken by public bodies. It ensures that governmental actions comply with the law and that proper procedures are followed.

Remedial Assessments and Remediation Works

These refer to corrective measures that courts can order to address environmental harm resulting from non-compliance with legal directives. Remedial assessments evaluate the extent of environmental impact, while remediation works involve actions to mitigate or reverse such impacts.

Habitat and EIA Directives

The Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) aims to promote the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora within the European Union. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive (2011/92/EU) requires that projects likely to have significant environmental effects undergo thorough assessment before approval.