The High Court has granted Inland Fisheries Ireland an order to determine on affidavit evidence its entitlement to specified reliefs in a long-running dispute over fishing rights on the Gweebarra Salmon Fishery in Co Donegal. The court did not decide costs and said the parties could be heard on any further orders required.
Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI) had asked the court to treat its motion as the trial of the proceedings for the purpose of deciding its entitlement to reliefs in paragraphs 1, 3, 4 and 5 of its claim. Those include a declaration that the defendants need permits to fish designated waters, and injunctions concerning fishing without permits and communications to permit holders. The court’s order concerning paragraph 1(a) was made “save in respect of the issue of costs”. The judgment does not set out a separate final determination of each substantive declaration or injunction sought in the claim.
The parties agreed that a map exhibited to an affidavit would be the map referred to in the proceedings, and that the defendants’ counterclaim would be dismissed. The judge made orders on those matters by consent, with the counterclaim dismissal also stated to be pursuant to an earlier order of Justice Laffoy.
The case had already gone through a first module of trial, heard over six days, concerning the plaintiff’s rights in specified areas. Justice Laffoy’s 2012 judgment and resulting order remained in place. The Supreme Court later refused the defendants’ application to introduce new evidence on appeal; the defendants then withdrew their substantive appeal. The Supreme Court had left open the possibility that additional cogent title evidence could be considered in a later module if relevant to the issues in that module.
In the present motion, the defendants relied on an affidavit describing historical material about the Congested Districts Board, fishing rights and local landholders. The judge said much of the material referred to was not exhibited, was difficult to read, or could not be evaluated as proof of title. She found it did not provide cogent new title evidence sufficient to justify a second or final module. She also noted that the defendants had not specified the scope of a proposed further module or the oral evidence they said would be needed.
The judge treated IFI’s application as an attempt to conclude the proceedings, rather than as a further step in the modular trial. She ordered that the hearing proceed as a trial on affidavit evidence for the purpose described in her ruling, subject to the stated exception for costs. The parties were to be heard on costs and any other orders.