Webster and Another v Meenacloghspar [Wind] Ltd, Shorten and Another v Meenacloghspar [Wind] Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Ms. Justice Emily Egan
• Judgment Date: 31 October 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 587
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: Record No: 2018/ 8457P

Between:

Margaret Webster and Keith Rollo

Plaintiff

and

Meenacloghspar (Wind) Limited

Defendant

Between:

Ross Shorten and Joan Carty

Plaintiff

and

Meenacloghspar (Wind) Limited

Defendant

[2025] IEHC 587

Record No: 2018/ 8457P

Record no: 2018/ 8458P

THE HIGH COURT

JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice Emily Egan delivered on the 31 ^st day of October 2025

INDEX

INTRODUCTION	3
General damages	3
Mr. Rollo's past and future accommodation claims	4
Property Devaluation	4
Aggravated and Exemplary Damages	5
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS	5
General damages	5
Mr. Rollo's past and future accommodation claims	6
Property devaluation	6
Aggravated and exemplary damages	7
APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES	7
Causation and remoteness/foreseeability	7
The assessment of general damages for nuisance	8
Property devaluation, stigma damages and reinstatement costs	11
Aggravated damages	13
Exemplary Damages	14
EVIDENCE	15
Ms. Webster and Mr. Rollo	15
Mr. Ross Shorten	16
Mr. Anthony O'Regan	16
Mr. Alan Fitzgerald	18
Mr. Tom Corr	19
Mr. Corr's comparables	20
Mr. Corr's scientific research	21
Material not considered by Mr. Corr	24
APPLICATION OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE	25
General damages and Mr. Rollo's accommodation claims	25
Ms. Webster	28
Mr. Rollo	28
The Carty Shortens	31
Property devaluation	31
Preliminary remarks in respect of the property devaluation claims	31
Stigma damages in respect of HH	32
Devaluation of NF	35
Aggravated Damages	36
Plaintiffs' submissions	36
a) the manner in which the wrong was committed, involving such elements as oppressiveness, arrogance or outrage; or	36
b) the conduct of the wrongdoer after the commission of the wrong, such as a refusal to apologise or to ameliorate the harm done or the making of threats to repeat the wrong	36
Failure to respond the plaintiff's legitimate complaints	36
Conway criterion (c) conduct of the wrongdoer and/or his representatives in the defence of the claim of the wronged plaintiff, up to and including the trial of the action	37
Conduct during the course of the proceedings and during the trial of module 1	37
Abject failure to engage with the substance of the plaintiffs' legitimate complaints. 37 Failure to disclose noise monitoring data gathered at NF	38
Allegation that the WTN was inaudible inside the Webster Rollo bedroom	38
Response to the court's module 1 judgment on liability	38
Defendant's submissions	39
Discussion and conclusion in relation to aggravated damages	41
Exemplary damages	45
CONCLUSION	46

INTRODUCTION

1 . This is my third judgment in these proceedings. At the conclusion of module 1, I held (“the principal judgment”) that the Wind Turbine Noise (WTN) from one of the two turbines operated by the defendant (T2) caused a nuisance to the plaintiffs during night hours and quiet waking hours (“sensitive periods”). At the conclusion of module 2, I determined that the plaintiffs were entitled to an injunction to abate the nuisance during sensitive periods and outlined the restrictions to be imposed upon the operation of T2 during those times.

2 . There are four main issues to be considered in this judgment. The first concerns the assessment of general damages for each plaintiff for the defendant's WTN nuisance, which has caused them to suffer substantial, pronounced, prolonged and repeated interference with the ordinary use, comfort and enjoyment of their homes beyond what an objectively reasonable person should have to put up with (for the sake of shorthand, I will refer to this as “general damages for nuisance”). The second issue concerns Mr. Rollo's past and future accommodation claims. The third main issue concerns property devaluation and the fourth concerns aggravated and exemplary damages. I summarise below the issues arising in respect of each of these issues.

General damages

3 . Although the legal principles governing the assessment of general damages for nuisance are the same in respect of each of the plaintiffs, their particular factual circumstances differ considerably.

4 . Ms. Webster continues to live at Hill House (“HH”). In her case, therefore, I must assess general damages for nuisance from the date of the commencement of the operation of the turbines in February 2017, until the date upon which this court's order abating the nuisance will take effect.

5 . The situation is different in respect of Ms. Webster's former partner, Mr. Rollo. In my principal judgment, I found that the WTN caused Mr. Rollo to suffer from a major depressive disorder of at least moderate severity with low mood, sleep disturbance and irritability. He therefore suffered a recognisable psychiatric injury. 1 Mr. Rollo's case is that, due to the severity of the WTN impact, it was necessary for him to urgently “remove himself from the situation” 2 and leave HH, which he did in March 2021. Mr. Rollo contends that, as he no longer lives at HH, he continues to be denied the benefit of any amenity whatsoever in that property, which he continues to co-own with Ms. Webster; this, he argues, ought sound in an award of ongoing general damages for nuisance (or in an award in respect of his future accommodation, as to which see below). By contrast, the defendant maintains that Mr. Rollo was directly exposed to the nuisance for a shorter time than Ms. Webster and is only entitled to general damages for nuisance up to March 2021. It is therefore necessary to consider the appropriate approach to the assessment of general damages for nuisance for Mr. Rollo in the period while he lived at HH and his entitlement, if any, to general damages for nuisance (or other compensation) after he left HH in March 2021.

6 . The Carty Shortens are in a different situation again. They had purchased Nettlefield (“NF”) with the intention of retiring to the country and making it their permanent home. However, even prior to the commencement of the operation of the wind farm, the Carty Shortens had decided, for family reasons, to sell NF. The Carty Shortens maintain that the sales process was very protracted and difficult. Ultimately, NF was sold in August 2021. This means that general damages for nuisance fall to be awarded to the Carty Shortens only during the period of their occupation of NF between February 2017 and August 2021.

Mr. Rollo's past and future accommodation claims

7 . The second main issue concerns Mr. Rollo's past and future accommodation claims. Ms. Webster and Mr. Rollo maintain that the impact of the WTN caused the breakdown of their relationship by the summer of 2020, at which point they decided to separate. By reason of that separation, and by reason of the passage of four years since Mr. Rollo left HH, it is no longer possible for him to return to HH even if the nuisance is now abated by this court's order. Mr. Rollo's past accommodation claim arises because, after he left HH in March 2021, he had to rent alternative accommodation. The total amount of rent paid by Mr. Rollo between March 2021 and the present time is €42,900. I must consider whether all or part of this sum is recoverable by way of either general damages for nuisance or by way of special damages. Mr. Rollo's future accommodation claim arises because he can now no longer return to HH which, he maintains, is substantially attributable to the WTN nuisance. Mr. Rollo therefore claims the cost of securing future accommodation in a comparable property. This future accommodation claim is advanced on two alternative bases. Mr. Rollo seeks either the current cost of purchasing a house similar to HH or alternatively full “reinstatement costs” (to again adopt the term used by the parties), consisting of the building costs of a property similar to HH on a stand-alone greenfield site in the vicinity. As regards the quantum of the first alternative, it is common case that the present value of HH absent the WTN nuisance is €400,000. As regards the quantum of the second alternative, the plaintiff has presented evidence that reinstatement costs are in excess of €1 million. It is fair to say that Mr. Rollo did not advance reinstatement costs as an item of special damages per se. Rather, this narrative, and the figures just set out, were tendered to the court as an aspect of the overall circumstances of the case which the court might consider relevant in assessing damages.

Property Devaluation

8 . There are two aspects of property devaluation which are said to arise from the WTN nuisance.

9 . The first devaluation claim concerns HH. Ms. Webster and Mr. Rollo maintain that even though the court has made orders which it considers will fully abate the nuisance, the capital value of HH will still be devalued in the context of a future sale. This claim is advanced on three separate factual grounds. First, they say that, even though this court has indicated that the order which it will make will fully abate the nuisance, a potential purchaser of HH will still have a lingering uncertainty as to whether the court's order will be effective in fully abating the nuisance and that this will impact the price that they are prepared to offer for the property. Second, the Webster Rollos argue that a potential purchaser will be concerned that the defendant may not wholeheartedly comply with the terms of this court's order, which will also impact the price. Third, the plaintiffs observe that this court will be making very detailed orders concerning the ongoing operation of T2, which will inevitably involve the future owners or occupiers of HH, in the short to medium term at least, in some level of ongoing engagement with the defendant and in verifying the effectiveness of the measures...