The High Court has dismissed a challenge by Lord Ballyedmond, formerly Senator Edward Haughey, to proposals to construct part of the North-South natural gas pipeline across his property.
Lord Ballyedmond had challenged orders made for the acquisition of lands of his at Dungooley, Co Louth, for the purpose of constructing a 900m section of pipeline. The section is part of the total 156km (97 miles) of pipeline being built by Bord Gáis between Gormanston, Co Meath, and Ballyclare, Co Antrim.
In his proceedings against the Commission for Energy Regulation, Lord Ballyedmond argued that the procedures used to select the path of the gas pipeline were unfair. He had proposed an alternative route across his lands but that was rejected.
In his reserved judgment yesterday, Mr Justice Frank Clarke rejected the challenge on all grounds and found there was no procedural unfairness in the manner in which the commission had reached its decision.
He dismissed claims that the decision was a disproportionate or irrational interference with Lord Ballyedmond's property rights either under the Constitution or the European Convention on Human Rights.
Claims that the issue of the costs of various proposed routes for the pipeline were not adequately notified to Lord Ballyedmond in a manner which would allow him a reasonable opportunity to deal with such issues were also rejected.
The judge noted that, under the Gas Act 1976, where there was an objection to a proposal to acquire lands for certain public projects, there was provision for an inspector to be appointed by the commission to look into the matter. An inspector was appointed in this case and had reported to the commission.
The inspector had recommended selection of a particular route, route A, for the pipeline which route passed across Lord Ballyedmond's lands and was regarded as the most direct and most economical route.
Lord Ballyedmond had proposed an alternative route, route B, which was longer and would involve additional costs because it passed across poorly drained lands. A third option, route C, was also advanced.
The judge noted that route B passed across lands owned by other persons.
The proceedings were adjourned to July 3rd when final orders will be made and the issue of costs will also be addressed.
