The judgment extensively referenced and built upon established legal precedents to determine the appropriateness of remitting the Board’s decision. Key cases include:

• Clonres CLG v. An Bord Pleanála [2018] IEHC 473: Established ten principles for remittal applications, emphasizing judicial discretion aimed at achieving just results.
• Usk and District Residents Association Ltd. v. An Bord Pleanála [2007] IEHC 86: Highlighted the court’s express power to remit decisions for reconsideration under specific regulations.
• Tristor Ltd. v. Minister for the Environment [2010] IEHC 454: Emphasized the principle that judicial remedies should aim to restore the status quo ante without overreaching.
• Christian v. Dublin City Council [2012] IEHC 309: Stressed the importance of fairness and justice in remittal decisions.
• O’Grianna v. An Bord Pleanála [2015] IEHC 248: Reinforced the court’s inherent jurisdiction to provide directions post-remittal.
• Fitzgerald v. Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council [2019] IEHC 890: Applied remittal principles to strategic development zones, underscoring efficiency in procedural corrections.
• Barna Wind Action Group v. An Bord Pleanála [2020] IEHC 177: Applied established remittal principles to ensure compliance with statutory obligations.
• Redmond v. An Bord Pleanála [2020] IEHC 322: Considered scenarios where remittal might be inappropriate due to substantial procedural flaws.

These precedents collectively informed the High Court's approach in assessing whether the identified procedural flaw could be remedied through remittal rather than necessitating a full annulment of the Board’s decision.

The court’s legal reasoning centered on the principles established in prior cases, particularly those delineated in Clonres CLG. The judgment underscored the following key points:

• Jurisdiction for Remittal: The court affirmed its express and inherent powers to remit decisions under relevant regulatory frameworks, ensuring compliance with procedural obligations.
• Discretionary Remittal: Remittal must balance judicial fairness with judicial restraint, aiming to correct specific procedural errors without causing undue delay or expense.
• Point of Error Identification: The court identified the specific procedural misstep at the stage where the Inspector’s report should have prompted EPA consultation, rather than an earlier or later stage, thereby limiting the scope of remittal to rectify only that error.
• Preservation of Procedural Integrity: Emphasized the importance of not undoing work that was conducted properly and judicially up to the point of identified error, thus avoiding wasteful repetition of legitimate process.
• Statutory Compliance: The court analyzed whether subsequent amendments to regulations affected the necessity or manner of remittal, concluding that the essential obligations under article 44 remained unchanged concerning the procedural flaw in question.
• Public Participation Assurance: The Board’s ability to enforce further public participation measures necessary to comply with statutory requirements was acknowledged, alleviating concerns that remittal would lead to mere procedural formalism.

The High Court meticulously applied these principles to ascertain that remittal was the appropriate remedy, thereby correcting the procedural oversight without necessitating a complete relicensing process.

The judgment has profound implications for future planning and development cases, particularly those involving complex regulatory compliance issues. Key impacts include:

• Clarification of Remittal Criteria: The decision provides a clear framework for when and how courts should remit decisions for reconsideration, emphasizing the necessity of correcting specific procedural errors without overstepping judicial boundaries.
• Enhanced Regulatory Compliance: Reinforces the importance of adhering strictly to environmental impact assessment regulations, ensuring that statutory obligations are duly met in planning processes.
• Efficiency in Judicial Remedies: By opting for remittal rather than quashing the decision outright, the court promotes efficiency, reducing the need for full re-examinations and minimizing delays in essential infrastructure projects.
• Precedential Value: The judgment will serve as a reference point for similar cases, guiding courts in balancing procedural fairness with practical considerations in judicial reviews of planning decisions.
• Public Trust in Planning Processes: By ensuring that essential consultations and regulatory requirements are fulfilled, the decision upholds public confidence in the regulatory oversight of significant infrastructure projects.

Overall, the judgment establishes a balanced approach to remittal, ensuring that procedural correctness does not hinder critical infrastructural developments, thereby aligning legal remedies with broader public and environmental interests.

Remittal refers to the process by which a court sends a case back to the original decision-making body for reconsideration in light of identified legal or procedural errors. This allows the decision-maker to rectify specific issues without restarting the entire process.

Judicial Review is a legal procedure through which courts examine the lawfulness of decisions or actions made by public bodies. It ensures that such bodies act within their legal authority and follow fair procedures.

Certiorari is a legal remedy in which a higher court reviews the decision of a lower court or tribunal to ensure it was made correctly according to the law. If significant errors are found, the higher court can quash the decision.

An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a process that evaluates the potential environmental effects of a proposed project before it proceeds. It ensures that environmental considerations are integrated into decision-making.

Article 44 imposes an obligation on decision-makers to consult the EPA regarding the potential impact of wastewater discharges from proposed developments. Compliance with this article ensures that environmental implications are adequately assessed and addressed.