Post‑Abatement Stigma Damages in Nuisance: High Court recognises market‑value loss where injunction requires ongoing engagement and verification

Post‑Abatement Stigma Damages in Nuisance: High Court recognises market‑value loss where injunction requires ongoing engagement and verification

Introduction

This commentary examines the Irish High Court’s judgment in Webster & Rollo v. Meenacloghspar (Wind) Ltd and Shorten & Carty v. Meenacloghspar (Wind) Ltd [2025] IEHC 587 (Egan J., 31 October 2025). The decision is the third module in a multi‑stage nuisance action arising from wind turbine noise (WTN) from one of two turbines (T2) at the Ballyduff wind farm.

In Module 1, the Court found that WTN from T2 constituted a private nuisance during “sensitive periods” (night-time and quiet waking hours). In Module 2, the Court granted an injunction to abate the nuisance and set operational restrictions on T2. Module 3 (this judgment) determines:

  • General damages for nuisance for each plaintiff;
  • Mr Rollo’s claims for past and future accommodation (including a “reinstatement” narrative);
  • Property devaluation for Hill House (HH) and Nettlefield (NF), including whether “stigma damages” are recoverable following the injunction; and
  • Aggravated and exemplary damages.

The plaintiffs are two neighbouring households. Ms Margaret Webster remains in HH; her former partner, Mr Keith Rollo, left HH in March 2021. Mr Ross Shorten and Ms Joan Carty (the “Carty Shortens”) owned NF as a weekend home and intended retirement home; they had decided to sell before the wind farm commenced operation but allege the sale in August 2021 was negatively affected by WTN.

Summary of the Judgment

  • General damages (annualised awards anchored to Byrne v ABO Energy [2025] IEHC 330):
    • Ms Webster: €10,000 per annum from February 2017 until the injunction takes effect (or, if stayed, until final orders);
    • Mr Rollo: €18,500 per annum from February 2017 to March 2021 (when he left HH); no damages beyond that date;
    • Mr Shorten and Ms Carty: €7,500 each per annum from February 2017 to August 2021.
  • Accommodation and “reinstatement”:
    • Past rental and future accommodation for Mr Rollo not recoverable; reinstatement cost theory rejected.
  • Property devaluation:
    • HH: stigma damages awarded notwithstanding the injunction, set at €30,000 (≈7.35% of €400,000) because ongoing engagement and verification required by the abatement order are reasonably likely to deter purchasers;
    • NF: devaluation at sale assessed at €55,000 (finding a likely WTN‑free value of €350,000 versus sale at €295,000).
  • Aggravated and exemplary damages: refused. Although the defendant’s conduct was “unimpressive,” the Conway v INTO thresholds were not met; compensatory relief (plus the injunction) sufficed.

What is new and why it matters

The judgment establishes a significant, nuanced development: stigma damages can be awarded after a court has granted injunctive relief abating a nuisance, if the abatement regime itself imposes ongoing obligations (engagement with the operator and verification by experts) that are likely to depress open market value. This contrasts with Byrne, where stigma damages were refused following a permanent shutdown order. The decision also reiterates the strict foreseeability limit on recovery for pure psychiatric injury and relationship breakdown consequences in nuisance, and it clarifies the assessment tools for WTN‑related devaluation.

Analysis

Precedents cited and their influence

  • Hanrahan v Merck Sharp & Dohme (Ireland) Ltd [1988] ILRM 629:
    • Defines the essence of private nuisance: the occupier’s right to the comfortable and healthy enjoyment of land judged by an objectively reasonable standard.
    • Establishes that actionable nuisance occurs when interference is so pronounced, prolonged, or repeated that a reasonable person should not have to tolerate it.
  • Patterson v Murphy [1978] ILRM 85:
    • Confirms recoverability for mental distress (annoyance, loss of amenity) in nuisance.
  • Kelly v Hennessy and Fletcher v Commissioner for Public Works [2003] 1 IR 465:
    • Feed into the foreseeability “control mechanism” for pure psychiatric injury—only reasonably foreseeable psychiatric harm is compensable.
  • Byrne v ABO Energy Ireland Ltd [2025] IEHC 330:
    • Provides the modern template for assessing general damages in WTN nuisance; endorses annualised per‑plaintiff awards and rejects valuation‑only measures;
    • Denied stigma damages where the court ordered a permanent shutdown and hence there would be no future nuisance risk;
    • Awarded aggravated damages; exemplary damages refused.
  • Munnelly v Calcon Ltd [1978] IR 387:
    • Restitutio in integrum governs damages; choice between reinstatement and diminution in value must be reasonable and proportionate;
    • Reinstatement will not be awarded where it would over‑compensate (betterment) relative to diminished value.
  • Conway v INTO [1991] 2 IR 305 and Shortt v Commissioner of An Garda Síochána [2007] 4 IR 587:
    • Define and distinguish compensatory, aggravated, and exemplary damages and set the high thresholds for aggravated and exemplary awards;
    • Aggravated damages center on defendant conduct; exemplary damages punish outrageous, conscious rights violations.
  • Uren v Bald Hills Wind Farm [2022] VSC 145 (Australia):
    • Illustrates an award of aggravated damages against a wind‑farm operator that never substantively addressed complaints.

Legal reasoning

1) General damages for nuisance: annualised assessment under Byrne

Egan J expressly adopts Byrne’s framework. The Court emphasises:

  • The goal is restitutio in integrum by compensating the loss of amenity to each plaintiff;
  • Capital value is not a fair proxy for the value of a home’s amenity; awards should be fair and proportionate, reflecting duration, timing (sensitive periods), character (amplitude modulation, low frequency noise, unpredictability), and each plaintiff’s circumstances.

Applying these principles, the Court sets differential annual awards:

  • Ms Webster (€10,000 p.a.)—impact broadly comparable to Mr Byrne in Byrne, with actionable nuisance in sensitive periods;
  • Mr Rollo (€18,500 p.a.)—more severe amenity loss than other plaintiffs up to March 2021 (profound sleep disturbance and 24/7 knock‑on exhaustion), but no uplift for his later psychiatric injury (not foreseeable) and no award after he left HH;
  • The Carty Shortens (€7,500 p.a. each)—less exposure given NF was not a full‑time residence.

2) Causation and foreseeability: psychiatric injury, relationship breakdown, and accommodation

The Court carefully separates factual causation from legal causation (remoteness/foreseeability):

  • Pure psychiatric injury: Though Mr Rollo suffered a recognisable psychiatric disorder caused in fact by WTN, the injury was not reasonably foreseeable; recovery is barred. WHO ENGER 2018 and the literature did not support foreseeability of psychiatric illness from WTN; Irish law treats psychiatric damage cautiously.
  • Relationship breakdown: The Court could not find on the balance of probabilities that WTN factually caused the breakdown. Even if it did, it was not a foreseeable consequence of WTN, and the literature shows no basis to expect relationship dissolution.
  • Accommodation claims:
    • Past rent: Not recoverable; the separation necessitated separate accommodation, which was not caused by, nor was a foreseeable consequence of, WTN.
    • Future accommodation/reinstatement: Rejected. Mr Rollo’s inability to return stems from the separation, not the nuisance (and, in any event, reinstatement would grossly exceed diminution in value, contra Munnelly). The injunction will abate future nuisance at HH; the law does not fund relocation in these circumstances.

3) Property devaluation, stigma damages, and the use of empirical studies

The property claims split between NF (sold during ongoing nuisance) and HH (retained; injunction to abate future nuisance).

NF (sold in August 2021)
  • The correct measure is the differential between the sale‑date value with WTN nuisance and the hypothetical nuisance‑free value at that date, not a “total sunk cost” approach;
  • On balance, NF would likely have achieved €350,000 absent WTN; actual sale price was €295,000; loss is €55,000 (≈15%);
  • The Court found limited assistance in the defendant’s comparables and emphasised that the defendant’s valuer had not engaged with the Court’s liability findings; it cautiously used empirical research to calibrate, notably the Irish study by Gillespie & McHale (2023) indicating a 14.7% average price reduction within 1 km of turbines (albeit as a proximity proxy, not proven nuisance).
HH (retained; nuisance to be abated)
  • Key ruling/precedent: Stigma damages can be awarded even after an abatement injunction where the injunction requires ongoing engagement with the operator and expert verification of compliance, and that requirement is likely to deter purchasers and depress price.
  • The Court rejected two asserted stigma rationales as legally irrelevant: (i) fear the injunction might not work; (ii) fear the operator might not comply. The Court must assume efficacy and compliance.
  • The Court accepted a third rationale: the abatement regime’s continuing obligations (engagement/verification) are in themselves a foreseeable, defendant‑caused, and compensable source of devaluation in the open market. Given the litigation timeline and the remaining 12 years of planning permission, the Court did not expect this stigma to decay soon.
  • Quantum: €30,000 (≈7.35% of the agreed €400,000 vacant possession value). The Court referenced Gillespie/McHale’s 14.7% proximity effect in 2016–2021 to conservatively anchor a figure at roughly half that rate for this distinct, post‑injunction stigma.

4) Aggravated and exemplary damages: thresholds not met

Despite strong judicial criticism (non‑engagement, failure to discover adverse NF data in a timely way, an unconstructive mitigation phase after liability, and an “unimpressive” approach), Egan J declined aggravated and exemplary damages:

  • Aggravated: The Conway criteria (oppressiveness, arrogance, or outrageousness; post‑wrong refusals to ameliorate/apologise; conduct in defending the claim) were not satisfied. The defendant’s right to defend, and the nature of continuous emission nuisance (as opposed to a one‑off tort), were carefully weighed. Compensatory relief and the injunction sufficed.
  • Exemplary: No deliberate and conscious violation of rights as per Conway/Shortt. The conduct did not reach the “sheer evil” standard warranting punitive damages.

This marks a different remedial outcome than Byrne, which awarded aggravated damages (20% uplift) on a record of stark non‑engagement, including with the planning authority. The Court here emphasised the defendant did at least put forward a factual witness (Mr Brazil), and some engagement occurred (including mediations), albeit poorly executed and unconstructive.

Impact and implications

The judgment has several immediate and longer‑term effects on Irish nuisance law and WTN litigation:

  • New stigma‑damages pathway post‑abatement:
    • Where an injunction abating nuisance does not shut down the source but instead imposes continuing monitoring/engagement obligations on the homeowner, a residual, foreseeable market devaluation may be compensable.
    • This approach is fact‑sensitive: the Court rejected stigma theories based on speculative non‑compliance or inefficacy but accepted the concrete, practical burdens of engagement/verification as a price‑depressing factor.
  • Annualised general damages endorsed and refined:
    • Byrne’s per‑plaintiff annual awards, adjusted for exposure, occupancy pattern, and severity, are affirmed. Sensitive‑period nuisance can yield substantial awards even without 24/7 nuisance findings.
  • Limits on consequential claims:
    • Strict foreseeability blocks recovery for pure psychiatric injury in nuisance (absent robust foreseeability evidence) and for secondary social consequences such as relationship breakdown;
    • Accommodation and reinstatement claims will be scrutinised for causation and proportionality (Munnelly) and will generally fail where the injunction restores amenity and the relocation need flows from other causes.
  • Valuation methodology in WTN cases:
    • Comparable sales in rural contexts are often weak proxies; courts may triangulate valuation with prudent use of empirical studies (e.g., Gillespie & McHale) while recognising their limitations;
    • Experts must engage with the Court’s prior liability findings and the lived experience of WTN (AM, LFN, unpredictability). Failure to read core judgments and evidence undermines weight.
  • Aggravated/exemplary restraint:
    • Even trenchant judicial criticism of a defendant’s conduct will not automatically attract aggravated or exemplary damages; Conway/Shortt thresholds remain high. The right to defend and to appeal is preserved.

Complex concepts explained

  • Private nuisance: Interference with the use/enjoyment of land judged by an objectively reasonable standard. It focuses on the character, intensity, timing, and duration of the interference (here, WTN’s amplitude modulation, low‑frequency noise, unpredictability, vibration/pressure, and sleep disruption).
  • General vs special damages:
    • General damages: Non‑pecuniary compensation for loss of amenity, annoyance, distress, sleep disruption—assessed annually here.
    • Special damages: Quantified pecuniary losses (e.g., rent, medical bills). In this case, past/future accommodation was not recoverable due to causation/foreseeability failures.
  • Stigma damages: Diminution in market value due to a property’s association with nuisance or the burdens of an abatement regime. Post‑abatement stigma was recognised here where ongoing engagement/verification is foreseeably price‑depressing.
  • Reinstatement vs diminution in value:
    • Reinstatement: Cost to rebuild/replace; generally inappropriate where it would overcompensate relative to loss in value (Munnelly), especially with no physical damage and a functioning injunction.
    • Diminution in value: Market value difference with/without nuisance (NF); or residual devaluation due to abatement burdens (HH).
  • Aggravated vs exemplary damages:
    • Aggravated: Enhanced compensatory damages reflecting hurt intensified by the defendant’s conduct (oppressive, arrogant, outrageous acts; refusal to ameliorate/apologise; litigation conduct).
    • Exemplary: Punitive, reserved for deliberate, conscious violations; “to make an example.” Rare and strictly confined.
  • Foreseeability vs “but for” causation:
    • “But for” evaluates factual causation; foreseeability screens which consequences of a tort are legally recoverable. Psychiatric injury and relationship breakdown failed the foreseeability test here.
  • WTN characteristics:
    • Amplitude modulation (AM): Rhythmic or erratic fluctuations in loudness (“thumping”), often attention‑drawing and disturbing at night;
    • Low‑frequency noise (LFN) and infrasound: Sound energy at lower frequencies; perceived as hum, pressure, or vibration; can disrupt sleep and concentration even when not “loud” by A‑weighted measures.

Key takeaways

  • General damages in WTN nuisance remain anchored to Byrne’s annualised, per‑plaintiff approach, adjusted for exposure, occupancy, and severity.
  • Psychiatric injury and social consequences (relationship breakdown) require robust foreseeability; otherwise, they will be irrecoverable even if factually triggered by the nuisance.
  • Property devaluation at sale is measured by the WTN‑free value at the sale date minus the actual sale price; courts will weigh expert instinct, comparables, and empirical research.
  • Critically, stigma damages can survive an abatement injunction where the injunction itself imposes ongoing engagement/verification burdens reasonably expected to deter purchasers. This “operational‑compliance stigma” is a new, carefully confined basis for post‑abatement recovery.
  • Aggravated and exemplary damages remain exceptional; a defendant’s right to defend and to appeal, even coupled with poor conduct, will not lightly meet Conway/Shortt thresholds.

Conclusion

Webster & Rollo is a substantial contribution to Irish nuisance law in the WTN context. While faithfully applying Byrne’s architecture for general damages, it carves out an important, principled space for post‑abatement stigma damages where the abatement regime itself imposes continuing obligations likely to deter buyers. The decision also reaffirms rigorous causation and foreseeability limits on consequential claims (psychiatric injury, relationship breakdown, and accommodation), and it clarifies valuation practice by judiciously integrating empirical studies with expert opinion in rural, low‑comparability settings. Finally, it underscores judicial restraint on aggravated/exemplary damages, even in the face of unimpressive defendant conduct, reinforcing that compensatory remedies and tailored injunctive relief will often suffice to vindicate private rights while safeguarding the public interest in renewable energy.

Case Details

Comments