Wind Turbine Noise Injunctions

Balancing private rights with the public interest in renewables

What follows is written by an experienced practising Barrister not AI, by which it will inevitably be 'scraped' (think about what a beam trawler does to the seabed).

If applications for planning permission in respect of renewable energy might be treated differently from other applications (see the Coolglass litigation discussed in my posts of 22 May and 17 and 24 January 2025), are we now also headed to a brave new world in which applications for injunctive relief against renewable energy projects are also treated differently?

Last week's latest instalment in the first wind turbine noise (“WTN”) case in this jurisdiction to proceed to trial and be concluded sheds some light on this question.

Before we get started though, I've noticed this evening that judgment in Byrne and Moorhead v ABO Energy Ireland Ltd [2025] IEHC 330, another WTN case, has been given today which also refers to injunctions against renewable energy operations. It comprises 401 paragraphs over 98 pages...so comparing these cases will have to wait for another day.

Webster and Rollo v Meenacloghspar (Wind) Ltd [2025] IEHC 300

Webster and Rollo concerned noise from two wind turbines which interfered with the Plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their nearby homes at Ballyduff, north of Enniscorthy, Co Wexford. The Plaintiffs sought damages and an injunction in respect of private nuisance by way of noise. The paragraph numbers (§) below refer to this most recent judgment unless otherwise stated.

Trial as to liability (Module 1) took place over 51 days producing a transcript of over 6000 pages and a judgment of 700 paragraphs and 180 pages. Emily Egan J held (8 March 2024, [2024] IEHC 136) that one of the two turbines (“T2”) caused a nuisance to the plaintiffs during night hours and “quiet waking hours” (defined at §173). I looked at the judgment in my post of 14 March 2024 and, in particular, at its implications for planning permissions and conditions.

In this post I look at the;

• parties' attempt to agree a resolution

• question as to whether injunctive relief should be available

• particular issues relevant to injunctive relief in renewable energy cases

• decision in this case

• practical lessons in this judgment for all parties (for paid subscribers only)

An Agreed Resolution?

In order to avoid shutdown of T2 unless absolutely necessary, and because mitigation of turbine noise is often a matter of “trial and error” (§7), the parties were directed to attempt to agree appropriate mitigation measures to abate the nuisance. The defendant trialled operating the turbine in question in a lower power mode, reducing the rotational speed of the turbine blades and marginally reducing the noise level.

The plaintiffs said that this measure had not abated the nuisance. The defendants maintained that even at full power there was no nuisance and were unwilling to trial any further measures. The Judge found that the defendants had failed to engage in the mitigation process “constructively” (§229) and that it was necessary for the Court to make an order.

Injunctive Relief?

Judgment in Module 2 was given on 27 May 2025 which concerned remedy and quantum of damages – in particular “whether the plaintiffs ought to be confined to damages in lieu or whether the nuisance should be abated by injunction and, in the latter instance, whether this court should order turbine shut down or some other form of restricted operation.” (§§6, 10).

In her judgment of last week, Emily Egan J held that nuisance having been established in Module 1, it was for the defendants to prove that there was no nuisance at the trialled lower power level (§171/2). The Judge found as a fact on the balance of probabilities (the civil standard of proof) that the operation of the turbine at lower power was “entirely ineffectual” (§229) and did not abate the nuisance (§176).

In those circumstances, the question arose as to whether the plaintiffs could secure injunctive relief.

Where there is liability for a tort (a civil wrong, of which nuisance is one type) there is often a debate as to whether the wronged party can be adequately compensated by the award of damages or whether the activity amounting to the 'wrong' needs to be stopped by an injunction. This issue is old and governed by case law going back to the nineteenth century. The Judge examined the law and the facts in this regard at paragraphs 187 – 198 and held that the plaintiffs were entitled to an injunctive remedy (§198).

Renewable Energy and Injunctive Relief

It is at this stage in the judgment that we arrive at the point of wider and contemporary interest – whether, and if so to what extent, the public interest in renewable energy is relevant to the question as to whether an injunction should be granted.

“Whilst public interest considerations are not relevant to liability in nuisance cases, they might be relevant to remedy.” (§203)

We should note at the outset that at least part of the reason that Emily Egan J directed the parties to try to agree noise mitigation was that;

“In light of the social utility of renewable energy, I would not order the shutdown of T2, even just at sensitive periods, if a more tailored solution could ameliorate the nuisance.” (§7)

The Judge held that any departure from the established principles upon which entitlement to an injunction is determined should “be determined by the courts on a case by case basis.” (§200)

In her judgment in Module 1, Emily Egan J held that;

“...the public interest must inevitably be a factor in the court's assessment of an appropriate remedy. At the very least it means that a generalised injunction ought not to be granted where a tailored injunction more suitable to the particular interference held to constitute the nuisance is warranted.” ([2024] §42, [2025] §202)

“Property rights [of a Plaintiff] may need to be balanced with the activity of the defendant, where that activity is in the public interest. On the other hand, because it is widely recognised that WTN may unreasonably interfere with the amenity of local residents, there is also a public interest in acknowledging and constructively addressing such problems at a national and an individual level. Devising appropriate measures to avoid WTN nuisance at the planning and development stage is clearly of critical importance to the achievement of the State's aim of substantially increasing renewable energy. However, it is also critically important that turbine operators engage constructively with genuine WTN nuisance complaints and devise appropriate abatement measures...It was within the defendant's purview to propose a strategy that would abate the nuisance, whilst preserving power generation as much as possible.” (§204)

“The defendant's argument of public interest based on loss of the environmental benefit of renewable energy is made in the most general terms only. No specific evidence has been provided as to how much of the power produced by T2 at night is actually deployed to the national grid.” (§205)

The Decision on an Injunction

“I have determined that nuisance is established but also that the public interest requires that the operation of T2 should be restricted no more than is necessary.” (§215)

“...if I can be satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that measures short of the complete shutdown of T2 during quiet waking hours and night hours would abate the nuisance, then I will fashion a remedy in those terms.” (§206)

Unfortunately the Judge was unable in this case to 'fine tune' the remedy to the extent that she might otherwise have done because the defendant “failed to adduce important evidence” relating, for example, to noise levels, wind speed and direction and background noise level (§229 and see, for example, §§218 and 226). “Had it done so, then it would probably have been open to me to devise more nuanced abatement measures inuring to the benefit of the defendant and the public.” (§229)

The Judge restricted the operation of T2 to lower operating modes during quiet waking hours in certain wind speeds and directions and ordered the shut down of T2 at night in certain wind speeds and directions.

Conclusion

There are practical lessons in this judgment for