The Supreme Court has dismissed the Minister’s application to review its 2018 decision upholding a €49,600 award to scallop fishing business partners Eugene Bates and Brendan Moore. The Court held that the application would, in effect, reopen the merits of the appeal, and that no constitutional unfairness or procedural defect justified doing so.
The earlier award arose from departmental officials’ incorrect advice that the partners’ vessels could lawfully fish for scallops in Area VIII(a) of the Bay of Biscay. The vessels were later arrested by French authorities and their skippers fined. The High Court awarded damages for losses directly linked to the arrest, conviction and penalties; it rejected the wider claims for lost earnings and capital losses. The Supreme Court dismissed the Minister’s appeal in February 2018.
The Minister sought review six weeks later, arguing that the Supreme Court’s account of events on 18 and 19 August 2003 was wrong and central to its decision. The application raised the exceptional power to review a Supreme Court judgment for error, despite the constitutional rule that its decisions are final and conclusive.
The 2019 judgment examined the High Court evidence and the submissions made during the appeal. The vessels were first observed fishing in Area VIII(a) at 4.30am on 18 August. They were arrested at 2.30am the next day, after moving north into Area VII(h). A departmental fax sent at 7pm on 18 August said officials had found no valid reason to prevent scallop fishing at the stated coordinates, while noting that the matter would be pursued further with the French authorities.
The Court acknowledged that accounts in the parties’ appeal submissions had confused the date and location of the arrest. It said, however, that the evidence, including testimony from the Alicia’s skipper and the fax, supported the conclusion that the fishermen received a reassurance about fishing before the arrest. That evidence had not been rebutted. The Court also said the errors in the appeal account were not shown to result from bad faith.
The Supreme Court concluded that the review application was effectively an attempt to remove the evidential basis for proximity and obtain a reassessment of the outcome. It found no breach of fair procedures or other constitutional basis for setting aside or varying its earlier judgment. The application was dismissed; the 2018 decision remained in place.