Roscommon couple lose appeal over claims fertiliser use damaged their health
Judge Senan Allen, of the Court of Appeal, said certain allegations the couple made about the neighbours’ families were “frivolous and vexatious”.
A County Roscommon couple has failed to convince a court their neighbours’ fertiliser use has damaged their health, The Irish Times reports.
Judge Senan Allen, of the Court of Appeal, refused to grant an injunction imposing a 100m “pesticide free safety zone” to Marlena Aurich and Scott Manning, who he said presented their case “passionately” and argued it related to a “matter of life and death”.
He said there was no evidence to support their claim that there was “permitted unlawful use of pesticides”. They “could say no more” than Michael Conroy, a suckler famer, and Patrick Duffy had used pesticides, which both men admitted to doing in a limited manner in line with regulations.
Judge Allen found no error in the High Court finding the couple had failed to establish any arguable causative link between the neighbouring landowners’ activities and their medical complaints. He said certain allegations Aurich and Manning made about the neighbours’ families were “frivolous and vexatious”.
The pair, who live on an acre of land in Kiltybranks, Co Roscommon, brought a High Court claim against three surrounding landowners: Conroy, Duffy and Patrick McCann, as well as the Minister for Agriculture and an officer in the Department of Agriculture.
Judge Allen’s written judgment noted Aurich and Manning claimed the neighbours were “maliciously administering poisons” and “endangering our lives”. The Minister and officer abused their authority on the use of pesticides, allowing “unlimited use” and causing personal injuries, the claimants alleged.
Aurich claimed she suffered severe pesticide poisoning and attended Mayo University Hospital in early 2020 where doctors ignored her “statement and truth”. Allen said her belief she suffered life-threatening pesticide poisoning was not supported by the hospital doctor, a respiratory clinic or her GP.
Manning alleged he suffered endocrine issues since being exposed to slurry spreading in March 2025. The pair said they sought protection from gardaí, Roscommon County Council and the Department of Agriculture but none responded satisfactorily.
Conroy, the suckler beef farmer, said he was entitled to use fertiliser for his work and inspections of his land by the Department of Agriculture found nothing of concern. He noted there was no medical evidence linking the medical complaints or the death of the claimants’ two pets to any form of poisoning.
Duffy said he used some pesticide for weed control, as permitted by legislation. He contended the claimants’ allegations were based on personal opinions rather than any medical evidence.
McCann did not appear before the court. The claimants could not prove he had been correctly served with the legal proceedings, so the case against him fell away.
The judge said Aurich and Manning wanted the court to restrain the neighbours from applying pesticides within 100m of their boundaries. He said there “was not a shred of evidence” in relation to the couple exhibiting death notices for two other locals, and asking: “What was the cause of death?”
The High Court found no evidence to support the claim of any causative link between the claimants’ alleged illnesses and fertiliser or slurry use. The court said there was also no evidence that trees on their land that fell during storms had been weakened by the neighbours’ use of pesticides.
In their appeal against this decision, Aurich and Manning alleged, among other things, that their constitutional rights were violated and their survival was at risk due to the High Court’s refusal to grant them an injunction.
Ruling for the three-judge Court of Appeal, Allen said the onus was on the plaintiffs to establish they had raised a fair question regarding the use of pesticides and their health.
“This could only have been done by scientific or medical evidence of a causal connection between the two,” the judge said, adding that photographs they submitted did not prove their case.
He rejected the suggestion the High Court hearing was “inhumane” and dismissed the appeal.
