Irish High Court refuses to adjourn Friends of the Irish Environment case due to COVID-19

In light of the current pandemic, the Courts Service of Ireland has limited the activity of the courts to urgent matters only to prevent the spread of Covid-19. This means that any non-urgent matters listed up to 5 May are adjourned, and mostly likely until the relevant restrictions are lifted. Future hearing dates remain in force, unless adjournment is sought by the parties.

Recently, the High Court refused to adjourn judicial review proceedings in Friends of the Irish Environment v Minister for Communications, Climate Action and the Environment, listed for hearing on 30 June 2020. The case was admitted to the Strategic Infrastructure Development List in February 2020, meaning the imposition of strict case management timelines by the Commercial Court.

The State applied for the case to be adjourned to a date in October as certain employees due to give evidence are now dealing with the implications and potential future implications of the COVID-19 virus for the security of supply of Ireland’s natural gas and electricity system. In addition, the State claimed that as the team is remote working they do not have access to all the necessary paper and digital files.

The High Court refused to adjourn the hearing date, however it did extend the timeline for submitting key documents. The Court considered the following:

• The resolution of the proceedings would primarily be determined through consideration of legal issues, rather than factual evidence, meaning extensive affidavit evidence by the identified employees would not be necessary.
• Practical or logistical difficulties could not be used as a reason to delay the administration of justice. Parties should expect to adapt to the new way of working brought on by the pandemic.
• There is a public interest in ensuring such proceedings are resolved in a timely manner, and the need for expedition was especially strong in the present case.

The adjournment application in the case was conducted through written evidence and submissions, however the parties were invited to apply for an oral hearing if they so wished.

Click here for the judgment.