The Supreme Court has declined an appeal from a man who alleged losses of over €1.5 million due to a portion of his lands being designated, ruling against his case. Harry McHugh, owner of lands in Cashelgolan, Portnoo, Co. Donegal, saw a section designated as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) in 1997. This area was part of the larger West of Ardara/Maas Road designated for habitat and species protection by the minister for the environment.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court highlighted that the lands were owned by McHugh’s uncle, Peter McHugh, at the time of designation in 1997, and he did not contest it. Following Peter’s passing in 2002, Harry inherited the lands. McHugh’s argument against the minister was that the lands were unlawfully designated as a candidate SAC, citing EU directives unlawfully transposed into Irish law. He also sought compensation for the loss of land use and benefits.
The defense contended that the EU directives were correctly transposed and McHugh had no standing to challenge the designation as he did not own the lands at the time. The court noted that McHugh’s objections in 2003 and 2006 did not impact his lands, but he claimed these notifications triggered his legal action.
In 2008, McHugh initiated High Court proceedings seeking declarations and damages for losses resulting from the refusal to designate the lands for afforestation. He alleged improper application of selection criteria and sought a reassessment for afforestation. The Supreme Court highlighted a lack of progress until 2014 when McHugh filed a statement of claim, alleging flawed designation based on a rapid survey.
The case was brought before Justice David Nolan in April 2024, who dismissed the proceedings, citing McHugh’s lack of legal standing. The Supreme Court, in rejecting an appeal, emphasized that McHugh was not the owner when the lands were designated, stating any challenge should have been made in 1997. The court found no breach of McHugh’s constitutional rights as he did not own the lands during designation.
Throughout the lengthy legal battle, McHugh failed to provide compelling scientific evidence challenging the basis of the designation on his lands. The court concluded that the notifications in 2003 and 2006 did not create a new cause of action for McHugh. Despite his efforts and substantial losses claimed, the court maintained that his case lacked legal merit.
