Discovery refused in claim for damages arising from erection of wind turbines

Motion for discovery - five separate categories of documentation – case for damages arising from erection of eight wind turbines – seeking damages for noise, shadow, shadow flicker, visual impact and their consequential impacts on the plaintiffs use and enjoyment of their lands and, in particular, their dwelling houses – restrain use of the turbines - also brought planning and development proceedings to cease the allegedly unauthorised development - relevant legal principles on discovery - considerable amount of discovery has been agreed between the parties – reasons for discovery – attempt to amend category refused – category refused as the plaintiffs have made no particular plea in relation to the specific design of the windfarm that would give rise to the necessity to discover documents in relation to it – category goes beyond what is pleaded – category fails to meet the test for relevance - court is not satisfied that the documents sought in this category are either relevant or necessary for the fair disposal of the issues in this case or for saving costs – discovery refused in all categories.