The High Court has ordered Martin Flaherty to provide further particulars of parts of his claim against aquaculture company Bradán Beo Teoranta over alleged damage to his fishing vessel, the Anita Marie. The ruling concerns what information must be supplied before trial; it does not decide liability or whether the company caused the damage.
Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered judgment on 12 June 2018 in proceedings issued in 2016. Flaherty claims the vessel was damaged at sea by rope belonging to Bradán Beo. The company sought an order compelling further and better particulars after saying the replies it had received did not adequately explain the case it had to meet. Its separate discovery application had already been resolved, with related orders made.
The statement of claim alleges that on 8 October 2016, at a stated Irish Grid reference in Kilkieran Bay, the vessel’s propeller, stern tube, rudder and skeg were fouled by a large quantity of 1.5 nylon rope, causing damage to its hull and machinery. It also alleges negligence and breach of duty by Bradán Beo. These remain claims in the proceedings, not findings by the court.
The judge ordered Flaherty to clarify the relevance of the 12 licensed aquaculture sites listed in his claim and how the licences matter to his case. He must also give material facts supporting the allegation that the rope belonged to Bradán Beo; identify the statutory duty alleged to have been breached and the specific acts or omissions relied on; and provide details about the locations and alleged deficiencies of cages, moorings and equipment.
Further particulars are also required about the warning said to have been necessary, the facts relied on for the claim that Bradán Beo caused the vessel to be fouled, and how Flaherty proposes to rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The judge ordered details of the nature and quantity of fishing gear allegedly left in the water or damaged, and further information about damage to that gear.
The court declined to order a copy of manufacturers’ specifications, treating that request as a matter for discovery. It also declined to require particulars about whether the claimed figures included VAT, noting Flaherty had indicated he was not subject to VAT. The judge said that detail was not necessary for Bradán Beo to know the case it had to meet and its absence would not cause surprise at trial.