The High Court has refused a request by Atlantic Shellfish Limited and David Hugh-Jones for an order inviting the defendants in their long-running oyster-fishery proceedings to consider mediation.
In a judgment delivered on 1 May 2015, Mr Justice Gilligan said the plaintiffs had already invited the defendants to mediate. Cork County Council had indicated it was generally willing to take part if Irish Water representatives were included. The State defendants said they were not opposed to mediation in principle but considered this dispute unsuitable, citing the public-law issues and their denial of liability.
The application concerned the procedure under Order 56A of the Rules of the Superior Courts. The judge noted that the rules allow a court to invite parties to use mediation, and that a refusal to participate without good reason may be considered later when costs are decided. He stressed that mediation depends on willing participants and that no party should be forced to attend.
The underlying proceedings concern claims arising from sewage discharges near the plaintiffs’ oyster beds in Cork Harbour. The plaintiffs’ position paper said the fishery was permanently closed in 2002 after years of pollution and related illness reports. Those matters were presented as the plaintiffs’ account; the judgment on this motion did not determine the underlying liability or loss claims.
The State defendants argued that the case raised questions about the Foreshore Acts, the legality of foreshore licences and whether the Minister owed a duty of care to affected third parties. They also relied on a 2010 direction that liability be determined before quantum. The plaintiffs said the factual and expert evidence would make a trial lengthy and costly, and that mediation could benefit the parties.
Justice Gilligan concluded that, in this application, the State defendants had given bona fide reasons for considering mediation unsuitable. He found the application’s purpose artificial, saying the plaintiffs were seeking an order that could support a later costs argument despite already knowing the State defendants’ position. He declined the relief sought.
The ruling decided only whether to make the requested mediation invitation. It did not resolve the substantive claims, assess the merits of any future costs application, or decide whether any party’s refusal to mediate would ultimately be considered justified.