Wind farm developer settles €1.8m dispute over Galway project

High Court Reporter

A Commercial Court dispute between a wind farm developer and two companies over an alleged failure to honour an agreement to facilitate access to land in Co Galway for the installation of turbines has been settled.

GP Joule Ireland Ltd sued Green Castle Capital Ltd and Cregmore Construction Company Ltd for some €1.8 million over what it claimed were serious misrepresentations about the state of readiness of the 11-turbine project. GP Joule has developed some 100 wind farms in recent years across Europe.

The case was admitted to the fast-track commercial division of the High Court last December on the application of GP Joule and with no opposition from the defendants.

On Monday, Judge Mark Sanfey was told by Oliver Butler BL, for GP Joule, the case had been settled and could be struck out.

It was claimed in the proceedings that Greencastle owns 100 per cent of the Clonberne Wind farm Ltd, which holds the rights to the wind farm. Cregmore is the guarantor and owns the intellectual property relevant to the project.

Under an exclusivity agreement, GP Joule claimed the defendants maintained that they had secured the consent and participation of 27 landowners on whose land the turbines would be built.

GP Joule paid €1 million to the defendants to negotiate the transaction, but it experienced several severe challenges in progressing it, many of which it confronted in the teeth of representations that had been made by the defendants, their lawyers and accountants, it was alleged.

It transpired that "many of these were in fact misrepresentations", Ciaran Donnelly, managing director of GP Joule said in an affidavit.

Two years after the agreement was entered, there remained insurmountable impediments to the completion of the transaction, he said.

When GP Joule served notice of the termination of the agreement, it sought the return of €1 million paid under the exclusivity agreement along with some €821,000 in what it says were fees it incurred in connection with the proposed transaction.

The claim was rejected by the defendants who also argued GP Joule requested new option agreements from the landowners, fully aware of the delays it would cause. It had also requested a revised transport route which also required additional time.