Four people who took High Court actions against a wind farm operator have been awarded more than €300,000 in damages arising from nuisance caused by the farm.
In a significant judgment delivered last year, Ms Justice Emily Egan held that noise levels from the two-turbine Ballyduff Windfarm at Kilcomb, near Enniscorthy, Co Wexford, amounted to an “unreasonable interference” with the enjoyment of two properties.
The challenges, taken against Meenacloghspar (Wind) Limited, of Stillorgan Road, Donnybrook, Dublin 4, were the first private nuisance claims from wind turbine noise to run in Ireland or the UK, the judge said at the time.
The first action was taken by Margaret Webster and her ex-partner Keith Rollo, whose home is close to the wind farm that has been operational since 2017. A second action was taken by Ross Shorten and Joan Carty, who owned another property close to the turbines but sold it in 2021, three years after commencing their proceedings.
READ MORE
In May, Ms Justice Egan granted an injunction placing restrictions on the operation of the wind farm − including the shutdown of one of facility’s turbines during certain hours.
In a recent ruling, the judge assessed damages to be awarded to the plaintiffs arising from the nuisance.
Ms Webster continues to live at Hill House, the property she jointly owns with her ex-partner Mr Rollo. It sits 369m from the nearest turbine. She sought damages for nuisance endured from the commencement of the windfarm’s operation to date.
Mr Rollo left the house in March 2021 due to the severity of the nuisance, which caused him to suffer with low mood, sleep disturbance and irritability. He claimed the nuisance caused the breakdown of his relationship with Ms Webster.
He contended that because he was denied the benefit of the property, he is entitled to ongoing damages for nuisance even after leaving it.
Meenacloghspar disputed this, saying that Mr Rollo should only be entitled to damages up to March 2021.
Ms Carty and Mr Shorten, of Grange Road, Rathfarnham, Dublin 14, bought their property with the intention of living there full-time in retirement. However, before the wind farm was operational, they decided, for family reasons, to sell the house.
The couple argued that the sale of the house − which lies about 359m from the nearest turbine − was protracted and difficult, with the property eventually sold in August 2021. They sought damages for the period between the commencement of operations and August 2021.
Mr Rollo’s case also sought compensation for his past and future accommodation costs.
During hearings this summer, he said he had paid €42,900 in rent since leaving Hill House.
Mr Rollo sought the cost of purchasing a house similar to Hill House, or alternatively, reinstatement costs for building a property similar to Hill House. An expert for Mr Rollo put the reinstatement cost at €1 million.
Ms Justice Egan said she would award general damages of €10,000 per year of nuisance endured by Ms Webster. This presently amounts to €87,500, with Ms Webster entitled to future damages until the court’s injunction abating the nuisance comes into effect.
The judge ruled Mr Rollo was entitled to general damages for the period between the start of the windfarm’s operation and March 2021, when he left Hill House. She said she would award €18,500 per year, amounting to a total payout of €77,000.
The judge awarded a total of €34,000 each in general damages to Mr Shorten and Ms Carty. She said this figure reflected the fact that their property was not their full-time home, but a place they visited on weekends, and somewhere they planned to retire.
The judge refused Mr Rollo’s claims for damages arising from past and future accommodation costs.
She said she accepted that the nuisance he endured, and the resulting “exhaustion, frustration and helplessness” and “recognised psychiatric disorder”, all contributed to the breakdown in his relationship with Ms Webster.
However, she said there was insufficient evidence before the court to conclude that the relationship breakdown could be attributed to the nuisance, or that “but for the [nuisance], Mr Rollo and Ms Webster would be still living together as a couple”.
The judge said Mr Rollo was not being prevented from enjoying Hill House due to the nuisance, and with the granting of the injunctive relief, will not prevent him in the future.
“Rather, Mr Rollo cannot return to Hill House because of the couple’s separation,” she said.
The judge also awarded damages arising from the devaluation of both properties caused by the nuisance. She said €55,000 should be awarded to Mr Shorten and Ms Carty to this end, and €30,000 to Mr Rollo and Ms Webster.
