Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI): Poultry farmer loses legal challenge over payment cuts

The RHI boiler scheme led to a three-year collapse of Stormont's devolved government

A County Antrim farmer who installed boilers under the flawed Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) scheme has lost a legal challenge over cuts to payments.

Poultry farmer Thomas Forgrave was given leave for a judicial review of the 2019 legislation.

It had reduced the payments owners could receive from £13,000 to £2,000 per boiler.

He argued that people who had originally signed up had a right to the tariff rates guaranteed for 20 years.

The case was dismissed after the court was told Mr Forgrave had received more than £1.1m in payments since joining the scheme in 2014, following an outlay of just over £500,000.

The RHI scheme was set up to encourage businesses and other non-domestic users to switch to environmentally-friendly fuels.

But there were flaws in how the Northern Ireland scheme was constructed - subsidies were higher than fuel costs.

When potential costs to taxpayers emerged, the scheme became known as cash for ash, and helped lead to the collapse of Stormont in 2017.

The scheme closed to new entrants in 2016.

• Key recommendations from the RHI inquiry

• Will the £13m public inquiry lead to meaningful change?

• BBC News NI coverage of the RHI scheme

A public inquiry found a series of failings, but no evidence of illegal activity.

Mr Forgrave challenged the Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Act 2019.

'Exemplary' applicant to the scheme.

He argued that the department had breached his right to property protected under European law.

Amid concern over reduced income rates, he has restructured bank loans taken to pay for the boilers he installed.

The judge said the key issue was whether the legislation imposed an unfair and excessive burden on Mr Forgrave, who was described in court as an "exemplary" applicant to the scheme.

"I recognise that whilst the 2019 scheme is quite different from the 2012 original, the scheme remains in place following intervention to eliminate the flaws which were causing overcompensation," Mr Justice Humphreys said.

"I have therefore concluded that the fair balance called for between the general interest and the interest of the individual has been achieved in this case," he added.