A5 appeal ‘litmus test’ for North – Pinsent Masons
Lawyers at Pinsent Masons say that a legal dispute over the construction of a new A5 dual carriageway could be “a litmus test” for how the North balances infrastructure and climate ambitions.
The North’s infrastructure minister Liz Kimmins last week confirmed that the Stormont Executive would appeal a June ruling by the High Court that halted the £1.7 billion upgrade of the road.
In , the High Court acknowledged that the works planned were designed to deliver improved road-safety standards but it upheld complaints raised by a group called the Alternative A5 Alliance, finding that the Executive had failed to meet its obligations under climate legislation before signing off the scheme.
The court therefore quashed Stormont’s approval of the A5 scheme through Tyrone and Derry, citing non-compliance with the .
Road-safety concerns
In a statement announcing the appeal last week, Kimmins cited the regional significance of the project and the urgent need to address road-safety concerns – over 50 fatalities have occurred on the A5 since 2006.
Belfast-based Pinsent Masons lawyers said that, while details of the formal grounds had yet to be made public, the Executive was likely to ask the Court of Appeal to consider issues of procedural fairness and interpretation of climate duties.
On procedural fairness, they said that a legal argument likely to be advanced was whether the High Court gave adequate weight to public safety and economic benefits, especially extensive public-inquiry and Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) findings that had rejected all proposed alternatives to the dual carriageway.
The Executive could also seek to argue that the environmental assessments and mitigation strategies it prepared were sufficient to show it had met its duties under the 2022 act.
‘More than a legal dispute’
“The A5 appeal is more than a legal dispute – it’s a litmus test for how Northern Ireland balances infrastructure ambition with environmental accountability,” said Lee.
Kirk added that the appeal could reshape how infrastructure projects were assessed under climate legislation in the North.
“If successful, it could clarify the evidentiary threshold for demonstrating climate compliance, influence how departments collaborate with environmental regulators like Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA), and affect future judicial reviews of transport, housing, and energy schemes.” she stated.
Kirk added that the appeal’s failure might “embolden” further legal challenges to large-scale developments and prompt legislative reform to reconcile infrastructure needs with climate imperatives.