Download PDF

Wind farm noise ruling in Ireland could influence assessment of nuisance claims

July 2025

On 5 June 2025, the Irish High Court passed down judgment in the case of Byrne & Moorhead v ABO Energy Limited & Ors. The judgment concerns remedies for private nuisance and damages for amenity interference, providing a potentially important yardstick for English Courts. It refers to recent supreme court cases in the UK, however, diverts from traditional methods of assessing damages for loss of amenity in England and Wales.

The case raises five primary questions:

1. How should damages be measured for past noise nuisance where no physical damage has been caused?
2. Was there also a breach of constitutional rights (Articles 40.3 and 40.5 of the Constitution of Ireland[1])?
3. Should the court order a full shutdown, or permit continuing daytime operation on payment of damages (partial injunction)?
4. Were aggravated damages warranted?
5. Were exemplary damages warranted?

Background

The Claimants brought a tortious claim against the Gibbet Hill wind farm for noise nuisance. They alleged that the noise caused by the Defendants’ site substantially interfered with the Claimant’s day to day enjoyment and use of their house and garden. Midway through the six-week trial the Defendants admitted liability and partially abated the problem by switching off the turbines between 10pm and 7am.

At the end of the case, the Defendants further proposed that they would switch off the turbines between 7am and 11am on weekends and public holidays. They also proposed to pay damages to cover future ongoing nuisance and for the nuisance to date. To provide support for their proposal, they pointed out that wind turbines were important for contributing to Ireland’s renewable energy needs.

The Court found in favour of the Claimants and ordered as follows:

• annualised general damages (€10k p.a. to the first Claimant, €15k p.a. to the second) for the twelve-year period of the amenity interference, totalling €300,000;
• a permanent injunction, shutting down the three offending turbines;
• aggravated damages of €24,000 and €36,000 respectively; and
• no exemplary damages.

Calculation of damages

In assessing the level of damages, the Court diverted from the approach of the English and Welsh courts. Following the case of Hunter v Canary Wharf, in England & Wales, the Courts have held that these are property cases, therefore there is one cause of action, and damages (even for transitory nuisance) should be assessed by reference to the value of the property and divided by the occupants.

In Byrne & Moorhead, the Defendants asked the Court to assess damages on similar grounds to those in England and Wales, i.e. on a basis of notional capital damage to the plaintiff’s home value to date.

The Court rejected this approach, and as an alternative found that measurement by reference to a notional drop in capital value attached too much significance to the capital value of the person’s home in cases of this nature. The Court found that the true value of a person’s home in the context of enjoyment, use and amenity, cannot be measured by reference to its capital value. Instead, it was held to be more just to consider and assess the effect, duration and impact on the amenity of the home (where nuisance has caused no physical damage) by reference to an assessment of the impact on an objectively reasonable person in the Claimant’s circumstances.

In its analysis of caselaw, the Court found that the traditional English approach led to the risk of vastly different awards that would not in general appropriately reflect the underlying constitutional rights protected by the tort of nuisance. By assessing based on the capital value of the home, different people could be awarded wholly different amounts of compensation for the same type of interference.

The Court introduced an annualised, plaintiff-specific tariff, calculated by:

• intensity and character of the noise;
• duration;
• individual impact (e.g. health vulnerability and time spent at home).

 

Right to commit nuisance and permanent injunction

As part of their submissions, the Defendants sought to compensate the Claimants for a future right to continue the nuisance. On analysis, the Court found that the Claimant had no right to buy a licence to continue a nuisance, absent any credible mitigation evidence.

The judgment held that, in general, a defendant should not be able to pay damages to allow them to continue to commit a nuisance that remains substantial and would continue for many years. The Court acknowledged that the Defendants’ activity contributed towards Ireland’s renewable energy goals, however it found that the Defendants had not proposed any evidence in their witness statements or expert reports which put forward an appropriate solution to abate or reduce the noise.

Overall, the Defendants failed to put forward any evidence as to what meaningful steps might be taken to reduce the nuisance and mitigate the problem. Instead, they sought to pay for a right to continue the nuisance. The Court found that the option of allowing them to continue the nuisance was not appropriate, principally on the grounds that the Defendants had failed to put forward any proper evidential basis for any mitigation.

In dismissing the Defendants’ requests, the Court ordered an injunction and a full shutdown of the turbines. The judgment found that the approach of the Defendants was aggravated and prolonged the upset, disturbance and distress of the Claimants, and awarded aggravated damages of €24,000 and €36,000.

While the nuisance engaged Articles 40.3 and 40.5 of the convention, the Court found that the injunction and aggravated damages amounted to a suitable rectification. Therefore, exemplary damages were refused.

Conclusion

The judgment is an important deviation from the English-law approach to private nuisance and damages for amenity. In the place of the capital value methodology, the Court favoured an annualised, plaintiff-focused award. The new methodology focuses on the individual, granting each plaintiff a personal award recognising lived experience in the place of capital valuation. This puts down a new yardstick for damages, and may be adopted by English Courts, who have historically found difficulty in valuing damages for loss of amenity.

In the context of the Defendants’ conduct, the judgment re-emphasised that those who ignore complaints may face total prohibition of their activities, and that it is crucial to have open and early engagement between parties. If a defendant seeks damages in place of an injunction, then they must engage timely and adduce mitigation evidence. The injunction ruling reaffirms that developers cannot obtain a licence to harm neighbours and must demonstrate that they have appropriate mitigation plans in place.

If you require environmental advice or  are facing environmental nuisance claims or want to understand how this ruling could impact your legal position, please contact the authors or the Beale & Co Environmental Team

[1] 40.3: The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen. The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen… 40.5: The dwelling of every citizen is inviolable and shall not be forcibly entered save in accordance with law.

Download PDF