Fisherman handed compensation over loss of earnings
ASALMON fishmerman whose methods were consigned to history by the Environment Agency has won more than £180,000 compensation in a landmark case.
Fishermen have been using picturesque ranks of putchers, a type of basket, to trap adult salmon in the Severn estuary for hundreds of years.
Nigel Mott was one of the last surviving proponents of the technique when the agency ordered him to cut his catch from 600 to just 30 fish a year.
He and fellow fishermen David Merrett made about £60,000-a-year from their 20-year lease on fishing rights in Lydney.
But the pensioner said the agency’s 2012 decision to slash his permitted catch made putcher fishing ‘wholly uneconomic’ and his lease ‘worthless.’
Judge David Cooke ruled in 2015 the agency’s decision violated Mr Mott’s human right to peacefully enjoy his private property.
And the same judge ordered the agency to pay him £187,278 compensation for the destruction of his trade.
The ruling is the culmination of a long campaign by Mr Mott, who had to fight the case against the agency all the way to the Supreme Court.
The agency said Mr Mott’s catch had to be cut to protect salmon fisheries in the neighbouring River Wye, a special conservation area.
Experts said there was a threat of salmon stocks in the Wye - which welcomes 10-15,000 spawning fish annually - becoming unsustainable.
But Mr Mott pointed out his putchers are 15km upstream from the mouth of the Wye and insisted his small operation posed no conservation threat.
Court of Appeal judges ruled in 2016 there was a rational basis for the agency’s tough restrictions on putcher fish
ing in the estuary.
But there was no evidence the agency had even considered the devastating impact on Mr Mott, of Stroat, near Chepstow, and his livelihood.
At least 95 per cent of his business had been ‘eliminated’ by the agency’s decision and his fishing rights were rendered unsaleable to anyone else.
Just because the catch limits were imposed on environmental grounds did not mean Mr Mott’s human rights could be ignored, the court ruled.
The agency’s challenge to that decision was rejected by the Supreme Court last year, opening the way for Mr Mott to seek compensation.
Judge Cook had the final word in the saga when he compensated Mr Mott for the profits he lost.