High Court grants judicial review of the decision of the Commissioner for Environmental Information to grant access to the transcript of a hearing before a property arbitrator in an assessment of the compensation due and owing to relevant land owners on the basis that the transcript comprised environmental information pursuant to the relevant regulations, the court finding that: the manner in which the Commissioner reached the conclusion that the transcript comprised environmental information was unlawful; and the findings of the Commissioner were irrational due to the use of terminology which plainly and unambiguously flies in the face of fundamental reason and common sense.
Environment – planning and development – European law - appeal on a point of law – Access to Information on the Environment Regulations - three categories of documents including the transcript of a hearing which took place before property arbitrator - assessment of the compensation due and owing to relevant land owners – request for information refused – internal review – decision refusing information upheld – appeal to Commissioner for Environmental Information - public access to environmental information is to be construed broadly and should be considered the norm – principles governing appeals on a point of law - remit of the court is confined to setting aside findings of primary fact only if there is no evidence to support such findings - characterisation of the hearing before the property arbitrator – argued that the ESB was not acquiring the land but rather placing a burden by way of an easement thereon – overly technical - clear compulsory component in the acquisition of the wayleave - not sufficiently central or fundamental to the decision-making process of the respondent to enable the asserted errors to vitiate the decision in the circumstances - argued that fair procedures were breached in not furnishing the submissions, in not indicating that Article 7 might be deployed, and in not making more reference to the possibility of a consideration of an inspection facility under Article 7 of the Directive - matters taken into account in determining that the non-furnishing of the submissions complained of prior to the relevant decision did not breach any constitutional right of the appellant or breach fair procedure - not necessary for the Commissioner to repeat or otherwise deploy a larger wordcount on the invitation to make submissions on inspection for the purposes of compliance with fair procedure – has not discharged the onus of proof in respect of a breach of fair procedure relative to the considerations subsequently given by the respondent to a potential inspection of the transcript subject to matters hereinafter detailed with regard to the appellant’s irrationality argument – whether the transcript comprises environmental information within the meaning of the regulations – no case review – not possible for the Commissioner to conclude that the transcript comprised of environmental information – manner in which the Commissioner reached its conclusion that the transcript comprised environmental information was unlawful – whether findings were irrational - release and access appear to be interchangeable words – decision not clear – findings are confusing and contradictory - use of terminology which plainly and unambiguously flies in the face of fundamental reason and common sense.