![](\"http:\/\/www.thedissenter.co.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/03\/Consequences-1-e1488455122888-300x171.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The\u00a0Renewable Heat Association (RHANI) sought a legal injunction to stop the Department for the Economy publishing the names its members, about 500 in total.<\/p>\n
Yesterday an interim injunction was overturned in respect of those companies who successfully applied to\u00a0the RHI scheme. Individuals who applied would seem to be except from their names being published, for now.<\/p>\n
There has been lots of comment on the judgement which has mostly focused on the publication of ‘names’, and how quickly those names might be published. However, in the BBC report of the judgement <\/a>it was a small comment that caught eye of @thedissenter<\/a>\u00a0<\/em>which seemed more important to the scheme of things.<\/strong><\/p>\n The report on the case states:<\/p>\n The judge ruled that the application for RHI subsidy did not amount to a legally binding contract.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n and;<\/p>\n He said the department had the right to vary the terms.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Why is that interesting? The argument that the RHI will cost \u00a3XXX million over 20 years rested on the premise that\u00a0approval of the applications meant the creation of\u00a0a legally binding, invariable contract. This\u00a0judge would seem to disagree.<\/p>\n It might expected that legal actions on RHI are far from over. However, if the point the judge in this case goes unchallenged (improbable, but not to say he will be over-ruled on this point later) that moving forward:<\/p>\n While seeking to protect the anonymity of its members the\u00a0RHANI may well have sped up the process of revision to the grant payments\u00a0of those who had RHI scheme approvals pre-2016, at considerable relief to the Northern Ireland budget.<\/p>\n Seems RHANI members may soon be facing the Law of Unintended Consequences.<\/p>\n\n