The High Court has shut the door on further legal challenges to the Shannon LNG project at High Court level.
Justice Humphreys delivered his judgement today, stating that "if one keeps litigating, one can block a project indefinitely" and that "eight written decisions on, that is not how the system is meant to work".
Shannon LNG wants to build a large liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal near Tarbert in North Kerry.
The project has been contested in the courts repeatedly over roughly eight years.
The Friends of the Irish Environment (FIE) first brought a legal challenge in 2018.
At that time, the High Court sent questions to the European Union's highest court, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), for guidance.
In 2020, FIE sought to have the project referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union again; however, this was refused.
In 2021, the High Court dismissed the remainder of that particular challenge.
In 2022, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decisions by refusing to allow the Friends of the Irish Environment to appeal.
In 2024, Shannon LNG Limited challenged a decision by An Coimisiún Pleanála, which replaced the former An Bord Pleanála, to refuse planning permission for the Shannon LNG project.
The High Court quashed the commission's refusal.
An Coimisiún Pleanála reconsidered the application and granted planning permission for a 600-megawatt power plant, a 120-megawatt battery storage system, and associated works near Tarbert.
FIE challenged this permission through a judicial review, but in April this year, Justice Humphreys upheld the commission's decision.
After losing in April, FIE applied for permission to take the case to a higher court.
In the High Court today, Justice Humphreys rejected that application.
Under Ireland's planning law system, the High Court can grant leave to appeal only if a case raises a point of law of exceptional public importance and if it is in the public interest for the appeal to proceed.
Justice Humphreys found that FIE's arguments did not meet those requirements.
He referred to the "tendentious nature" of the questions raised in the appeal, which he said appeared to "spread maximum confusion".
He also wrote of the "excessively litigated nature" of the project.
The group could still appeal to the Supreme Court, and it would be up to that court to decide whether it would accept the case.
