The Supreme Court has refused leave to appeal a High Court decision upholding planning permission for a data centre in Co. Clare, finding that the proposed appeal did not raise issues of general public importance or exceptional circumstances warranting a direct appeal.
The proceedings concerned An Coimisiún Pleanála’s decision to grant Art Data Centres planning permission for data centre buildings and an associated substation in Ennis, Co. Clare. The applicants challenged the permission on environmental grounds, arguing that the Commission had failed to adequately assess the development’s greenhouse gas emissions and comply with its obligations under section 15 of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015.
In Doyle v An Bord Pleanála (No. 3) [2026] IEHC 156, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys dismissed the challenge. Applying the principles established in Coolglass Wind Farm Limited v An Coimisiún Pleanála [2026] IESC 5, the High Court found that the applicants had not demonstrated that the planning decisions fell outside the range of lawful outcomes consistent with section 15.
The High Court also rejected arguments that the Commission had applied the wrong legal test by stating that it had “had regard” to the Climate Action Plan 2023, rather than expressly referring to its obligation to act consistently with it. The Court found that the decision and inspector’s report, read as a whole, demonstrated substantive engagement with the relevant statutory requirements.
The applicants subsequently sought permission to bring a leapfrog appeal directly to the Supreme Court, raising three issues concerning the treatment of renewable energy supplied through a Corporate Power Purchasing Agreement (CPPA), the Commission’s duty of consistency under section 15, and the consideration of carbon budgets and Sectoral Emissions Ceilings at project level.
In refusing leave, the Supreme Court found that the first proposed ground did not arise from the High Court’s judgment. While the applicants sought clarification on how renewable energy supplied through a CPPA should be assessed, their original challenge had focused on the alleged absence of an enforceable requirement to enter into such an agreement.
Regarding the second ground, the Court was satisfied that the High Court had correctly identified the applicable consistency test and applied established principles of interpretation. No issue of general public importance arose merely because the applicants disagreed with the High Court’s assessment of the Commission’s decision.
The Court also rejected the third ground, finding that the applicants sought an abstract determination concerning carbon budgets and emissions ceilings without challenging the relevant findings of the High Court. It emphasised that judicial review proceedings cannot be used to obtain opinions on hypothetical legal questions disconnected from the decision under challenge.
Finally, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that exceptional circumstances arose because the Coolglass principles were being applied to a data centre rather than a wind farm. The Court held that applying established legal principles in a different factual context did not, of itself, render an appeal exceptional.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court refused leave to bring a leapfrog appeal.