The High Court has ruled that members of the public did not acquire a common-law right to fish freely in the non-tidal stretch of the Gweebarra River considered in this stage of a dispute over access and fishery management.
Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI) brought the proceedings against Peadar O’Baoill, John Gerard Boyle and John Boyle. The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Laffoy on 19 December 2012, addressed a limited first module: whether IFI could manage access to areas marked on a map as “IFI owned fishing” and “Kevin McDonnell fishing”, and whether the parties were entitled to relief concerning those areas.
The court heard evidence that local people and visitors had fished the river, including Mayo Pool, without seeking permission or facing objection for decades before a management plan was introduced. The defendants argued at the hearing that this use supported a public right to fish. The judge held that Irish common law did not recognise such a right in non-tidal waters based on long use. She also said no claim of a private easement or profit à prendre was advanced at the hearing, and no evidence supported one.
On the southern bank, the court found that the Congested Districts Board had acquired fishery rights from the Marquis Conyngham in 1917. However, the evidence did not establish whether those rights are now vested in IFI, the relevant Minister or another State entity. The judge found that IFI could manage and regulate access there, provided the defendants had not established an equal or superior right.
On the northern bank, the area in this module lay in Befflaght. Kevin McDonnell was the registered owner of the relevant lands, with no fishing-right reservation shown in the title documents. The court found a prima facie fishing right arising from his ownership and held that an agreement with IFI’s predecessor, the Northern Regional Fisheries Board, gave IFI contractual authority to manage and regulate that interest. This too was subject to any equal or superior right established by the defendants.
The court answered “yes” to whether IFI could manage and regulate access to the areas in issue and was entitled to the reliefs sought against the defendants concerning them. It answered “no” to whether the defendants were entitled to the counterclaim reliefs concerning those areas.
The ruling covered only a small part of the fishery, including Mayo Pool. It did not settle the wider dispute or enable IFI to implement its management plan across the whole freshwater catchment. The judge urged the parties to seek a local agreement.