The High Court ruled that Waterville Fisheries Development Limited had standing to pursue judicial review over a salmon farm licence amendment, despite its appeal to the Aquaculture Licences Appeals Board having been lodged in the name of the Waterville Fisheries Development Group.
Mr Justice Hogan delivered the judgment on 8 April 2014. The preliminary issues concerned standing, statutory time and service requirements, and whether the company could challenge the Minister’s April 2010 decision not to revoke the licence.
The judge found that the company and the group were, in substance, the same organisation. He relied on an affidavit stating that they shared an address and that the company was made up of a local angling association and associated bodies. He therefore answered the standing question in the company’s favour.
The judicial review concerned an Aquaculture Licences Appeals Board decision of 31 October 2012, which upheld the Minister’s 22 March 2011 approval of amended operating procedures for Silver King Sea Foods Limited, trading as Marine Harvest Ireland. The amendment concerned new stocking arrangements at the company’s salmon farm at Deenish Island in Ballinskelligs Bay, County Kerry. Silver King said the change would reduce the farm’s environmental impact; the applicant and others disputed that claim. The judgment addressed preliminary procedural questions, not the merits of that environmental dispute.
The applicant had not served Salmon Watch Ireland or Inland Fisheries Ireland within the three-month period in section 73(2) of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1997. They were served later and indicated they did not wish to participate. The judge held that the statutory reference to parties to the appeal meant relevant or necessary parties. He concluded those two bodies were not necessary parties to the judicial review and rejected the argument that their late service required the case to be dismissed.
The judge ruled that the proceedings were validly constituted and brought by a party with standing. But he also held that the applicant was out of time to challenge, directly or indirectly, the Minister’s April 2010 decision not to revoke Silver King’s licence. The judgment does not determine the substantive validity of the 2011 licence amendment or the Board’s 2012 decision.