In this case, the plaintiff asked for a judicial review of the Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) licence granted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the company Roche Ireland Limited for the air emission resulting from its production of chemicals and pharmaceuticals.
The plaintiff challenged the permit on the basis that the decision to grant the IPC licence was unreasonable and ultra vires because the decision had been taken using the wrong legislation. Additionally, the plaintiff pointed out that the decision of the EPA was in breach with the statutory duty to provide reasons for its decisions.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the basis that the decision taken was not unreasonable it was based not only on the Environmental Impact Statement and on the report of an independent expert. They also considered that the EPA had used the proper piece of legislation, as it referred to section 92 of the 1992 Environmental Impact Assessment Act which is can be used in that case because the grantee is not only asking for a renewal of its IPC for its activities but is requiring a new IPC for its new planed incinerator. Finally, the Court held that the decision of the EPA was providing enough reasons explaining its decisions to grant the IPC