The Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeal against a High Court ruling for two mussel-farming companies, rejecting findings of breach of legitimate expectation and operational negligence. The court reversed the High Court judgment, so the question of damages did not arise.
The case concerned Cromane Seafoods Limited and O’Sullivan McCarthy Mussel Development Limited, which claimed losses linked to closures of the mussel fishery at Castlemaine Harbour. The High Court had found that the State was negligent in delaying the fishery’s reopening and in delaying environmental tests. It also found a breach of legitimate expectation. Those were the decisions under appeal, not findings made by the Supreme Court.
Writing in a judgment dated 22 February 2016, Mr Justice John MacMenamin said he would uphold the appeal on both issues. He said he agreed with the other judges who also supported allowing the appeal on operational negligence. His judgment focused on whether the negligence concept used by the High Court could support liability in these circumstances.
The High Court’s reasoning included the State’s failure to carry out scientific surveys and monitoring before 2008, and its actions after a 2007 European Court of Justice ruling found Ireland had failed to meet requirements under the Habitats Directive. That ruling concerned the need for appropriate assessment before authorising projects that could affect protected sites. MacMenamin said the negligence identified by the High Court was difficult to pin down: it appeared to span years of alleged omissions as well as decisions taken in 2008 and later.
He concluded that the earlier Supreme Court decision in Duff did not establish a general precedent for operational negligence. He also considered that imposing a duty of care here was inconsistent with the principles in Pine Valley and Glencar. The Minister was exercising discretion amid complex national and European environmental obligations, MacMenamin said, and the court could not impose liability by second-guessing those administrative choices. The respondents had not challenged the statutory instruments under which the State acted.
The Supreme Court’s order, as described in MacMenamin’s judgment, was to allow the appeal and reverse the High Court judgment. The judgment does not award damages; it states that the damages issue therefore did not arise.