Factual and Procedural Background
The Applicant previously succeeded in quashing the national climate mitigation plan in 2020 for insufficient detail. The Government subsequently provided a more detailed Climate Action Plan 2023 (CAP23), which is the subject of the present judicial review challenge.
The first National Mitigation Plan was published in 2017 under the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 (2015 Act). A non-statutory Climate Action Plan was published in 2019. The Supreme Court quashed the 2017 Mitigation Plan in July 2020.
The first climate action plan under the 2015 Act was published in 2021. Amendments to the 2015 Act were enacted in July 2021 (2021 Act), introducing carbon budgets and sectoral emissions ceilings (SECs).
The Climate Change Advisory Council (CCAC) submitted proposed carbon budgets covering 2021-2035, which were laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas in 2021 and took effect in April 2022. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published updated emissions reports in 2022, reflecting revisions to baseline data and projections, notably for the Land Use, Land-use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) sector.
The Government deferred setting SECs for the LULUCF sector due to significant new scientific data, with an intention to finalize by Q4 2023. The Applicant has separate judicial review proceedings challenging the SECs.
The impugned Climate Action Plan 2023 was approved by the Government on 21 December 2022, with an associated Annex of Actions approved on 7 March 2023. Subsequent climate plans and strategies were approved through mid-2024, with preparation ongoing for the 2025 plan.
The proceedings were instituted on 2 June 2023, with leave granted for judicial review. The matter was heard on 28 and 29 January 2025, with judgment reserved.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Applicant has demonstrated any illegality in the Climate Action Plan 2023 and its Annex of Actions despite the increased granularity of the plan.
- Whether the plan and steps leading to its adoption comply with the administrative law requirements and specific statutory provisions of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 (as amended), including consultation, reasons, and consideration of relevant scientific data.
- Whether the Climate Action Plan 2023 provides sufficient specificity and quantification to enable a reasonable and interested member of the public to assess its adequacy and realism in meeting statutory climate objectives and carbon budgets.
Arguments of the Parties
Applicant's Arguments
- The Climate Action Plan 2023 and Annex of Actions are invalid for non-compliance with sections 3(3), 3(4), 3(5), 4(2)(a), 4(2)(b), and 4(3) of the 2015 Act as amended.
- There was defective consultation with the CCAC, lack of adequate reasons explaining the Government's position relative to CCAC advice, failure to properly take account of EPA data, and failure to consider quantification as a relevant issue.
- The plan lacks sufficient specificity and quantification, preventing the public from forming a reasonable judgment on its realism and adequacy in meeting statutory targets.
- The Applicant contended that the plan does not demonstrate that the measures will ensure compliance with the carbon budgets, and that justifications for emissions reductions, particularly in agriculture, are lacking.
Respondents' Arguments
- The CCAC was properly consulted in accordance with statutory requirements, and the Government engaged extensively with the CCAC during preparation of the carbon budgets and CAP23.
- The obligation to consult the CCAC is a "have regard to" duty, not requiring reasons for non-acceptance of advice.
- The Minister and Government took account of EPA projections and reports in preparing CAP23, fulfilling statutory obligations.
- The plan provides sufficient quantification and specificity, including detailed tables of abatement measures quantified in greenhouse gas emissions metrics, enabling a reasonable person to evaluate the plan's realism.
- Some measures are inherently not quantifiable but necessary; however, the quantifiable measures have been reasonably estimated.
- Reasons and supporting material for the plan are found not only in the plan itself but also in accompanying documents and publicly accessible materials, consistent with modern administrative law principles.
- The Applicant failed to engage with the detailed material and did not provide expert evidence to challenge the quantifications or justifications.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Friends of the Irish Environment v. The Government of Ireland & Ors [2020] IESC 49 |
Requirement for sufficient specificity in climate plans to enable public evaluation of realism and adequacy to meet statutory climate objectives. |
The Court distinguished the present case from Friends I due to amendments in the legislation and greater detail in CAP23, but relied on the principle that plans must enable reasonable public judgment on realism. |
| Cork County Council v. Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage [2021] IEHC 683 |
Clarification that statutory obligation to "have regard to" EPA projections does not amount to an obligation to comply with them. |
Supported the Respondents' argument that the Minister complied with the statutory duty by taking account of EPA data. |
| Coolglass Wind Farm Limited v. An Bord Pleanála [2025] IEHC 1 |
Distinction between "comply with" and "have regard to" obligations in environmental law. |
Referenced to illustrate correct interpretation of statutory obligations regarding EPA data. |
| Connelly v. An Bord Pleanála [2018] IESC 31 |
Requirement to give main reasons on main issues in individual decisions affecting rights. |
Used to explain the level and location of reasons required in administrative decisions. |
| Christian and Others v. Dublin City Council (No. 1) [2012] IEHC 163 |
Requirement for reasons in measures of general application affecting individual rights. |
Applied in categorizing the nature of reasons required in climate action planning. |
| R. (on the application of Friends of the Earth Ltd) v. Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [2022] EWHC 1841 (Admin) |
Requirement for explanation and quantification in climate plans, and that plans must be reasonable on the material before the decision-maker. |
Considered relevant and persuasive on the quantification and explanation requirements, with acknowledgment of differences in legislation. |
| R (Friends of the Earth Ltd and others) v. Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero [2024] EWHC 995 (Admin) |
Judicial review finding a climate strategy unlawful for unjustified assumptions that all emissions reductions measures would be delivered in full. |
Accepted as a valid principle of administrative law requiring reasonableness, but distinguished because the present case was not pleaded or evidenced on that basis. |
| Killegland Estates Ltd v. Meath County Council [2022] IEHC 393 |
Reasons for decisions can be found in documents other than the decision itself, including publicly accessible materials. |
Supported the view that the plan is not invalid due to lack of reasons within the plan document alone. |
| An Taisce - The National Trust for Ireland v. An Bord Pleanála [2022] IESC 8 |
Legislative purpose of climate law to promote climate justice and the proper scope of environmental impact assessments. |
Referenced regarding the legislative context and scope of climate legislation obligations. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court began by reviewing the statutory framework under the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 as amended by the 2021 Act, emphasizing the enhanced obligations introduced, including the requirement that the Climate Action Plan "ensure" compliance with carbon budgets and sectoral emissions ceilings.
The Court noted the Applicant's core ground that CAP23 and its Annex of Actions failed to comply with statutory consultation, reasoning, and quantification requirements.
On consultation with the CCAC, the Court found that consultation occurred as required and that the statutory obligation was a "have regard to" duty, which does not mandate reasons for non-acceptance of advice. The Applicant failed to establish any breach on this point.
Regarding the EPA data, the Court accepted the Respondents' evidence that the EPA's most recent inventory and projections were taken into account in preparing CAP23, fulfilling statutory obligations.
Turning to the issue of specificity and quantification, the Court acknowledged the importance of enabling a reasonable and interested member of the public to form a judgment on the plan's realism and adequacy to meet statutory climate objectives. The Court emphasized that the concept of carbon budgeting requires numerical quantification in greenhouse gas emissions metrics.
The Court found that CAP23 contains detailed tables quantifying abatement measures by sector in MtCO2eq, and the Annex of Actions further specifies measures with timelines, responsible entities, and outputs.
The Applicant failed to engage meaningfully with the detailed quantification provided, did not produce expert evidence challenging the figures or justifications, and did not demonstrate that the plan lacks sufficient specificity to enable evaluation of its realism.
The Court rejected the Applicant's argument that the plan must provide scientific certainty, recognizing that "ensure" compliance entails a high level of confidence but allows for estimation and qualifications.
The Court also accepted that reasons for decisions may be found in accompanying or publicly accessible documents and that it is not necessary for all reasons to be contained within the plan document itself.
Finally, the Court noted that the Applicant's approach of re-litigating scientific and technical policy without expert evidence was inappropriate and that shortcomings in government action are more properly addressed through submissions and expert evidence prior to decision-making.
Holding and Implications
The Court's final decision is DISMISSED.
The relief sought by the Applicant to quash the Climate Action Plan 2023 and associated Annex of Actions was refused. The Court found no legal defect in the plan's consultation, consideration of scientific data, or level of specificity and quantification sufficient to invalidate the plan.
This decision directly affects the parties by upholding the validity of CAP23 and does not set new precedent beyond clarifying the application of the amended 2015 Act's requirements in this context.