The Supreme Court has dismissed an application by three fishermen to introduce new evidence in their appeal over fishing rights in Donegal, ruling that the evidence was not relevant to the issues decided in the first module of the High Court trial.
The application concerned the chain of title to the northern bank of the Gweebarra Fishery. The fishermen said searches by their solicitor, Seán Boner, had uncovered records suggesting that the relevant fishing interests passed through the Congested District Board, the Land Commission and government ministers. They argued the interests were now vested in the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, rather than in Mr McDonnell, whose title had been considered by the High Court.
The appeal arose from a first module of a larger, ongoing case. In 2012, the High Court found that Inland Fisheries Ireland had the right, at the time of trial, to manage, control and regulate the relevant part of the fishery. It also found that the fishermen had not established an equal or superior right to the interests relied on by Inland Fisheries Ireland, and had not established a right to fish in the freshwater part of the river covered by that module.
The Supreme Court noted that Inland Fisheries Ireland accepted the new material appeared credible and that the fishermen’s searches met the relevant diligence requirement. The application therefore turned on whether the evidence could have an important influence on the result of the appeal.
It could not, the Court concluded. The first module dealt with the parties’ current and future positions, while the proposed evidence concerned earlier ownership. Even if the title evidence were admitted, it could not change the first module’s outcome: Inland Fisheries Ireland had a current entitlement to manage the fishery through a different chain of title.
The Court also explained that the case remained a single trial divided into modules. Findings from an earlier module should not ordinarily be reopened, but a trial judge may, in exceptional circumstances, allow a non-essential finding to be revisited in a later module, including on the basis of new evidence. That would depend on whether the title issue became material to the matters being decided and whether the proposed evidence could make a material difference.
The Supreme Court dismissed the application to admit the evidence. It did not decide the underlying appeal in this judgment. The Court said any relevant chain-of-title question should be considered in a later High Court module if it becomes material there.