Library filed under Legal from Europe
Alex Salmond and US presidential candidate in war of words as justices reject Trump's legal challenge over 11-turbine project that will 'spoil the view' from his Scottish golf course
Siemens Public Limited Company (plc) and RWE Innogy UK Limited (RWE) were fined after 27-year-old Colin Sinclair was killed when he came into contact with the unguarded rotating shaft of a gearbox within a turbine at Causeymire windfarm.
The Supreme Court in London will withdraw the ruling in favour of MT Højgaard from 5 November, when it rejected an application from E.ON to allow an appeal against the ruling in an old dispute regarding the Robin Rigg offshore wind farm.
Inneo Torres claims that Acciona breached contracts the two had and stole intellectual property relating to how to make towers for wind turbines, according to a copy of the lawsuit. While Acciona acquired some patents relating to towers when it bought a unit of Inneo, it chose not to exercise an option that would have given it ownership of all of the technology, the complaint says.
Navitus Bay project director Stuart Grant said today: "After careful consideration, Navitus Bay has chosen not to challenge the decision by the Secretary of State to refuse consent for the proposed wind park.
Christiane Nansot, an agricultural expert, who endorsed the farmer’s grievance confirmed that the drop in milk production was caused by the 24 turbines installed by the company, next to the family farm in Le Boisle district, near Abbeville in Northern France. “The geologist said that a geographical fault in the underlying rock could be leading to amplification in waves emanating from the turbines,” she said.
Edward ‘Ned’ Buckley had agreed to a single turbine being erected on adjacent land as part of an overall €30m development of 22 wind turbines by Kilkenny–based Ecopower Developments Ltd. However, he was shocked to discover a subsequent planning application sought provision for a 75m road across his land. ...Mr Buckley conceded that he had signed a document facilitating access but said he later withdrew consent before any decision had been made.
A wind farm company has claimed that Mayo County Council and the National Roads Authority were ‘inconsistent’ in the reasons they gave for denying planning permission for eight wind turbines in bogland near Bangor Erris.
The Court rejected a judicial review of the planning consent granted for a 67 metre wind turbine to be built in Carmarthenshire, south west Wales, brought by local residents. However, it was concerned that one of the planning conditions attached to the planning permission "would permit variations in height so that the scale and impact of the turbine would be different from that for which permission was granted".
In May 2013 the Supreme Court of Justice of Portugal decided that the remaining 3 turbines had to be removed from the vicinity of Mr. R’s property. The lower court had ordered the removal of the closest turbine but allowed the other three to stay, hence the appeal to the Supreme Court. The developer is apparently appealing the decision to the European Court. ...A bittersweet victory given that Mr R’s health is ruined and the family’s way of life destroyed. Money cannot fix that sort of damage. From a legal point of view what is important is that the courts, including the Supreme Court, accepted the expert evidence of the authors of this paper concerning the terrible toll that infrasound and low-frequency noise has on both humans and animals, whilst it rejected the opposing evidence led by the wind industry lawyers.
At the Commercial Court yesterday, Mr Justice Robert Haughton said People Over Wind had raised a number of grounds of appeal of exceptional importance which it was desirable, in the public interest, for the Court of Appeal to determine. The appeal should be expedited, he added.
Broadview Energy had asked the High Court to overturn the refusal of consent for the proposed wind farm between the villages of Helmdon and Greatworth and order a reconsideration of its application. But today Mr Justice Cranston rejected the company’s claim that the minister who turned down the plan was guilty of bias.
A court ruled in the couples’ favor, confirming the proposed wind farm clearly had the possibility of impacting on both the future value and the buyers’ enjoyment of their new home. The solicitors were found to be negligent in failing to inform their clients about these plans and as a result the buyers received a substantial compensation settlement.
An energy company denied planning permission for two wind turbines at a Norfolk farm because of danger to low flying aircraft has failed in a High Court challenge against the decision.
Laugharne community council’s clerk, Chris Delaney, said the town was “absolutely elated”. He said: “It was an appalling decision which would have impacted on probably one of the most iconic views in west Wales. It is a place of international renown. Hundreds of thousands of people come here because of Dylan Thomas and right in the middle of it they were going to put a huge turbine.”
The case relates to the Viking Energy wind farm which was approved by ministers in April 2012. ...In October 2013, judge Lady Clark of Calton ruled that the granting of permission was "incompetent", since the plant did not yet have a distribution license from Ofgem.
RWE decided to challenge the decision in the courts, arguing that the ruling was not properly and lawfully reached. But last Friday, the judge ruled against RWE, agreeing with the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) that the decision was fair.
“I personally will not see the turbine, nor be affected by its noise from where I live, 4km away. However, lots of people will see it, and no doubt be annoyed by it, and will probably see the value of their hard earned homes fall as a result, with no chance of compensation."
In this case, the claimant, Andrew Joicey, argued six grounds for overturning the planning approval of a 100kilowatt wind turbine. Primary among the complaints was that the planning council did not provide public access to the turbine noise assessment report until a day before the hearing where approval was granted. Complaints were also issued over whether the council properly considered the cumulative impact of noise from a neighboring wind project. The count agreed with Mr. Joicey and overturned the approval. This is the third time the court overturned a planning decision approving this turbine. The decision can be accessed by clicking the links on this page. The introduction of the decision is provided below.
The former executives are accused, among other charges, of using their positions at the company to make private side-deals in the wind turbine business, which is in direct violation of Vestas's corporate policy and Danish and German law.