The High Court has dismissed a group of fishermen’s claim for compensation linked to the European Union ban on drift-net fishing for albacore tuna, finding that the proceedings were brought outside the limitation period.
The plaintiffs said the then Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food assured them in 1998 that compensation would follow the ban. The defendants denied promising payment, saying any scheme depended on European funding that Ireland did not have available.
Justice Binchy found it likely that the Minister referred to compensation in discussions with fishermen in May and June 1998. But the remarks were general and unspecific, made in informal and politically charged settings, and referred to whatever measures could be agreed at European level. The judge did not accept that the Minister promised “generous” or “substantial” compensation.
The plaintiffs ultimately sought €285,000 each, the maximum available under the relevant EU decision for conversion of a vessel over 80 tonnes. The court noted that the decision’s scheme required funding from unallocated structural funds, which Ireland did not have. It also found that the ban restricted the fishing method rather than tuna fishing itself, and that some plaintiffs continued fishing for tuna using other methods.
The judgment found that the assurances did not create a legitimate expectation to compensation. It also rejected the plaintiffs’ request for a declaration that the State had failed to defend and vindicate their rights. The judge said the State’s decision to make preparation of a conversion plan optional was a reasonable response to the lack of funds, and that the plaintiffs had not established a right to the declaration they sought.
The court held that the claim accrued no later than 31 December 1999, when the deadline for committing funds under the EU decision had passed. The plaintiffs issued proceedings on 12 December 2007, more than six years later. The judge therefore found the claim statute-barred and dismissed the proceedings. In light of that conclusion, he did not decide the defendants’ alternative request to strike out the case for delay.