Alternative A5 Alliance v Northern Ireland Department for Infrastructure

At the beginning of 2025, a group of landowners, farmers, and campaigners under the name the Alternative A5 Alliance (AA5A) filed for judicial review to challenge the Northern Ireland Department for Infrastructure’s (DfI) decision to continue the A5 dual carriageway project. The challenge was filed under Article 67BA of the Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993. The major infrastructure project was aimed at improving the A5 route between Derry and Aughnacloy, which has been a lasting safety concern, resulting in numerous civilian deaths. The plaintiff alleged that the DfI’s decision failed to comply with Section 52 of the Climate Change (Northern Ireland) Act 2022. This section mandates public authorities to have regard and act in accordance with the legally binding Climate Action Plan, which was not in place at the time the DfI decided to proceed with the project. On these grounds, the plaintiff contends that DfI did not have a proper legal framework to ensure it was complying with Ireland’s climate targets, specifically an emissions reduction cap. The plaintiff also contended that the defendant failed to take into account a critical relevant consideration, or a recently updated Climate Action Plan, when it approved the plan. The plaintiff also alleged that the DfI acted unlawfully by disregarding the Planning Appeals Commission’s recommendation of imposing a time limit for the project’s development, representing a breach in procedural fairness. The plaintiff contended that the lack of a time limit caused uncertainty for the landowners and residents near the project, failing to comply with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to respect for private and family life. The court issued a judgment stating that the DfI acted unlawfully by making a decision inconsistent with Section 52 of the Climate Change (Northern Ireland) Act 2022. The court also stated that the DfI ignored a critical relevant consideration as it proceeded without an updated Climate Action Plan and that DfI violated the principles of procedural fairness when prolonging uncertainty for landowners and residents. The court also ruled that the time limit violations constituted a human rights violation, and ultimately quashed the DfI’s decision to proceed with the project.