Friends of the Irish Environment CLG v Roscommon County Council & Ors (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant initiated judicial review proceedings challenging the validity of a decision by the local authority authorising flood relief works at a designated Special Area of Conservation ("SAC") under the Local Authorities (Works) Act 1949. The SAC’s qualifying interests include a priority habitat protected under the Habitats Directive. The local authority had purported to authorise the project without the procedural environmental screenings required by EU law, relying instead on the 1949 Act.

The proceedings commenced on 13 August 2021 with an ex parte application for leave to apply for judicial review, which was granted along with a stay on the works. On 25 August 2021, the parties settled, and the court made an order quashing the local authority’s decision and requiring remediation of the site in accordance with an agreed remediation plan. The remediation involved sealing a partially laid pipeline and backfilling trenches.

The chief executive of the local authority confirmed substantial completion of the remediation works by mid-October 2021. Subsequently, the chief executive issued an order authorising emergency flood relief works under a different statutory regime—the Local Government Act 2001—asserting that these works did not require further environmental assessment. The emergency works involved using the previously installed pipeline, necessitating removal of the caps installed under the remediation plan.

The Applicant alleged that these actions constituted contempt of the court order of 25 August 2021 by breaching the remediation requirements. The local authority denied any breach, asserting a bona fide understanding of the order and willingness to comply if a breach were found.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the local authority, through the chief executive, breached the High Court order of 25 August 2021 by removing pipeline caps and proceeding with emergency flood relief works.
2. Whether the High Court order requires the local authority to seek court permission before relying on a fresh development consent obtained under a different statutory regime.
3. The appropriate interpretation of the court order in the context of subsequent development consents and remediation obligations.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The removal of the pipeline caps and use of the pipeline for emergency works breaches the court order requiring remediation and sealing of the pipeline.
• The remediation plan intended that the pipeline be rendered unusable for carrying water unless the court order was varied or discharged.
• The court order and remediation plan contain no temporal limitation allowing the local authority to undo the remediation works later.
• The local authority must maintain the remediation works unless and until the court order is formally varied or discharged.

Local Authority's Arguments

• There has been no breach of the court order based on their bona fide understanding of its terms.
• If the court finds a breach, the local authority will immediately take necessary steps to comply with the order.
• The emergency works are authorised under a different statutory regime and represent a significantly scaled back project not requiring the same environmental assessments.
• The fresh development consent obtained under the Local Government Act 2001 is prima facie valid and does not require additional court permission to rely upon.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by interpreting the 25 August 2021 order objectively, as a reasonable and informed person would understand it, resolving any ambiguity in favour of the local authority as the alleged contemnor. The order quashed the original decision authorising flood relief works under the Local Authorities (Works) Act 1949 and required remediation of the site, including sealing the pipeline.

The court emphasised that the original challenge was procedural, based on the invalidity of the development consent under the 1949 Act due to non-compliance with EU environmental directives. The order was not intended to preclude the local authority from seeking development consent under a different statutory regime, such as the Local Government Act 2001 or the Planning and Development Act 2000, which properly incorporate environmental protections.

The court noted that the local authority had obtained a fresh development consent under the Local Government Act 2001 for emergency works, significantly scaled down from the original project, and that this consent was prima facie valid unless successfully challenged in separate proceedings.

The court rejected the Applicant’s contention that the local authority must seek court permission before relying on the fresh consent or undoing the remediation works. It reasoned that the High Court order did not impose a permanent policing regime over the site or sterilise its use indefinitely. Instead, the appropriate mechanism to address any concerns about the new consent is through separate judicial review proceedings, which the Applicant or others with sufficient interest may institute.

The court further distinguished the present case from Howard v. Commissioners for Public Works (No. 3), noting that while that case involved an injunction requiring variation, the present order was not absolute in precluding development under different legislation and did not require the local authority to seek prior court approval to rely on new statutory powers.

Holding and Implications

The application for an order of attachment against the chief executive of the local authority is refused.

The court held that there was no contempt of court as the local authority’s actions in relying on a fresh development consent under a different statutory regime did not breach the 25 August 2021 order. The order was interpreted to allow lawful development under valid consents obtained in compliance with environmental law.

The direct effect is that the chief executive will not be compelled to answer for contempt in relation to the alleged breach. The decision preserves the right of the Applicant or others with sufficient interest to challenge the fresh development consent through separate judicial review proceedings, subject to case management by the court. No new precedent was set beyond clarifying the interpretation of the court order in the context of subsequent development consents and remediation obligations.