Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal dismisses appeal from High Court, and affirms dismissal of a claim by persons involved in mussel-harvesting against the State for alleged mismanagement of the stocks of 'bottom mussel seed', following a 'voisinage' agreement with Northern Ireland allowing other persons to access the mussels in Irish territorial waters, on the grounds that: (a) although the trial judge had expressed a misleading view of the expert evidence, and there was clear evidence of mismanagement, it was also necessary to establish a proximity between mismanagement and any loss suffered by the plaintiffs; (b) the State did not owe the plaintiffs a duty of care in respect of the management of the mussel stocks over and above their duty to the people of Ireland; and (c) the plaintiffs had been unable to establish an infringement of any constitutional rights such that it was necessary for the court to fashion a remedy for them.
Edwards J (nem diss): Appeal from dismissal of claims - claims by persons involved in mussel harvesting arising from management by State of mussel seed fishing within the exclusive fishery limits of the State - management of stocks of bottom mussel seed - claim arising within territorial waters of the State (12 nautical miles from shore) - originally within 'exclusive fisheries limits of the State (200 nautical miles from short) - decisions of Seed Mussel Advisory Committee - whether appropriate remedy to be made in judicial review - Council Regulation (EC) No 1263/1999 of 21 June 1999 on the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (otherwise known as “the FIFG Regulation”) - voisinage arrangement with Northern Ireland - expert evidence - joint report - whether any significant disagreement between experts - whether State owed the plaintiffs a duty of care - legitimate expectation - negligence - whether to accept findings of fact by trial judge - whether mismanagement of resource by State - proximity - 'pure economic loss' - whether duty of care owed by State to plaintiffs - whether court to fashion a bespoke remedy to vindicate the plaintiffs' rights.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
The only e-mail alert service for all Irish judgments over the past 13 years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now