Hassard and Others v Department for Infrastructure [2026] NICA 42

The point in plain English: The Northern Ireland Court of Appeal overturned the High Court ruling that had blocked the first authorised phase of the A5 Western Transport Corridor. The appeal court rejected the challenges to the Department for Infrastructure’s assessment of the road’s environmental, human rights and climate consequences. Section 52 of the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 remains a mandatory duty, but is not an automatic veto on emissions-generating infrastructure.

The A5 litigation

The proposed A5 Western Transport Corridor is a major road improvement between Derry and Aughnacloy. The department appealed against the quashing of its decision to proceed with authorised sections of the scheme in the original High Court judgment, [2025] NIKB 42. During the appeal, a climate evidence issue was remitted to the High Court. McAlinden J maintained his earlier position in the addendum, [2026] NIKB 10, before the Court of Appeal reached its final decision. Keegan LCJ delivered the Court of Appeal’s judgment on 6 October 2026, sitting with Treacy LJ and Humphreys J. The result was to allow the department’s appeal on the legal grounds considered.

Environmental impact assessment

A key issue was the environmental evidence on traffic and greenhouse gas emissions, including induced journeys crossing the border. Revised estimates had been prepared after an earlier traffic model and environmental statement. The Court of Appeal found that those matters had been sufficiently examined through the original assessment, public inquiry and later decision-making process. It rejected a requirement to restart the environmental statement procedure merely because updated emissions statistics were presented. This is a decision about the particular evidence and inquiry history, not general permission to omit major environmental effects.

Human rights and scheme blight

The Planning Appeals Commission had described serious uncertainty and disruption for residents and landowners. It proposed a time limit for beginning construction, which the department rejected. The Court of Appeal considered the department’s reasons and how the potential interference with article 8 rights had already been addressed in the decision-making process. It found legal error in the High Court’s treatment of the issue. This does not mean that the effect of major infrastructure on homes and private life can be disregarded.

How the climate duty applies

Section 52 of the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 requires Northern Ireland departments to exercise functions, so far as possible, in a way consistent with the Act’s emissions targets and carbon budgets. The Court of Appeal confirmed that this is a real legal requirement. But it rejected an interpretation requiring every individual project to have its emissions included in a specifically quantified project-level pathway in a climate action plan before it could be approved.

A department must undertake adequate inquiries into the consequences of its decision and reach a rational judgment about consistency with the statutory framework. That exercise remains reviewable. The decision should not be treated as an exemption from climate law, and its statutory analysis cannot simply be transplanted into a different UK’s nation legislative regime.

Practical effect and later steps

The court’s success for the department removed the particular High Court obstacle to the authorised scheme, but did not itself determine land ownership, vesting, compensation or subsequent works. Planning Geek subsequently reported that A5 land vesting was still unresolved. Infrastructure practitioners must distinguish a successful judicial appeal from the separate legal steps needed to deliver a project.

Judgment and case context

The official Judiciary NI record identifies the full [2026] NICA 42 judgment, while the court’s summary is a convenient introduction. Read our original A5 Court of Appeal report for the context. The final approved judgment, rather than a short court summary, should be consulted before quoting individual legal propositions in submissions.