Can you claim for fish lost to pollution in the river?

Recent reports of large-scale fish deaths on the River Glyde following a suspected pollution incident upstream are concerning. However, whilst this example has arisen in Ireland, it raises an immediate legal question when looking at non-tidal rivers in the UK: if fish are not “owned”, can a claimant recover anything at all?

At English common law, this initially presents as a problem for those who suffer first hand in the wake of such an event as the one in County Louth this week. In the UK, when looking at free flowing non-tidal rivers, fish are classified as wild animals and are not specifically owned when they are swimming free. However, exclusive fishing rights may exist as a proprietary interest (typically a profit à prendre) and it is worth noting the position differs in relation to enclosed private waters. Accordingly, a pollution event does not constitute the destruction of property in the conventional sense, as would be the case with livestock or tangible goods.

However, this does not mean that fishery and riparian owners along these waterways have no legal remedy available. English law protects fisheries and rights over land, rather than the fish themselves. The substance of a person’s claim, and the value recognised by the courts, is in the individual’s legal right to fish – a recognised proprietary interest capable of carrying substantial economic value. In practical terms, angling clubs or landowners affected by a fish kill could seek compensation for:

• reduction in the overall value of the fishery
• loss of profits (e.g. angling rights/licences)
• loss of amenity value
• the costs of restocking and remediation; and
• long term losses as a result of a prolonged recovery period.

Alongside private claims, pollution incidents will often attract regulatory enforcement from the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency has broad powers under the Environmental Permitting regime (alongside broader statutory powers including the Water Resources Act 1991 and Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975) to prosecute offences involving pollution, unlawful discharges and damage to fisheries. This was illustrated by the prosecution of Plumpton College in 2020, where the college received a substantial fine after a slurry spill into a local stream caused the death of over 1,500 fish and other ecological harm.

Importantly, regulatory enforcement does not compensate affected landowners, and any recovery must be sought through separate civil proceedings. While river fish themselves are not owned in law, the courts recognise the loss of a functioning fishery as a compensable proprietary and economic harm. For landowners, fishery operators, and angling clubs, the practical implication is that, even in the absence of traditional property damage, a pollution event may still give rise to substantial recoverable losses where the viability of the fishery long-term is negatively impacted.