The High Court dismissed Martin Dunne’s claim against Vedanta Lisheen Mining Limited over alleged damage to farmland and buildings near the mine at Killoran, County Tipperary. In a judgment delivered on 28 July 2016, Mr Justice Tony O’Connor found that Mr Dunne had not proved, on the balance of probabilities, that the mine caused the surface damage he alleged.
Mr Dunne said mining activity, particularly work that began in 2012, caused settlement on his farm and damage to buildings. He relied on nuisance and argued that obligations under the mining lease and section 31(3) of the Minerals Development Act also required the company to address harm to the land. His wife was described in the judgment as joint owner of their home and the relevant lands.
The court heard evidence about depressions within an 18-acre area and cracks in buildings. Experts agreed that monitoring showed rock settlement below the land, with readings of up to 210 millimetres, and that settlement could continue slowly for years. But the judge found there was minimal, if any, settlement at the surface due to the mine’s activities. He was not satisfied that the slight cracks or changes to outbuildings and the silage pit were caused by that settlement.
The judge considered it more likely that the significant depressions, apart from those along the avenue and public road, resulted from the area’s peat fen, soil and clay, decomposition of tree stumps and earlier reclamation and reconfiguration works. The court also found that the evidence did not establish that the depressions were caused or contributed to by mine dewatering.
The judgment said that even if minimal mine-related movement had contributed to subsidence, the plaintiff had not established the resulting loss on the balance of probabilities. The court found no nuisance damage had arisen to date. It said a claim could be brought within the applicable limitation period if future mine-related damage occurred, while finding no prospect of such damage on the evidence before it.
The court also rejected the alternative claim for restoration or compensation under the lease and statute. It found no evidence that the mine had failed to minimise damage or disturbance, and held that no meaningful restoration order could be made for the minimal changes identified. The judgment concluded that the plaintiff’s claims for relief failed and dismissed his claim for damages.