The High Court found that Atlantic Marine Supplies Ltd had established an obligation on the Minister for Transport either to alter the fishing boat safety Code of Practice or to enforce it as it then stood. It did not award damages, finding there was insufficient evidence that the Minister had culpably failed to enforce the code.
Mr Justice Clarke’s judgment, delivered on 26 March 2010, addressed Atlantic’s claim that inadequate enforcement of life raft rules had reduced its business supplying and servicing safety equipment. Atlantic and its principal, Sean Rogers, alleged that many fishing boats carried rafts below the required standard. The Minister, Ireland and the Attorney General were defendants.
The court found that the Code of Practice, introduced in 2004, gained quasi statutory status after legislation in 2006 made a declaration of compliance a prerequisite to a sea fishing boat licence. The code itself did not create an offence or a directly enforceable duty to comply. However, the court interpreted it alongside Marine Notices from 2003 and 2005: a fishing vessel carrying an unapproved life raft did not comply with the code. Evidence from an engineer’s spot checks indicated that a significant number of vessels carried rafts designed for the yachting sector. The court’s finding concerned the code’s meaning and the evidence presented; it did not establish a statutory duty on the Minister to ensure continuing compliance by every licensed boat.
The court rejected Atlantic’s claims in negligence and breach of statutory duty. It concluded that the legislation did not impose the alleged enforcement duty and was intended to protect fishermen’s safety, not service providers’ commercial interests. It also found no sufficient relationship to establish a common law duty of care to Atlantic.
On legitimate expectation, the court held that the Minister’s licensing framework represented that the code would be enforced reasonably through the licensing system. Certified service providers such as Atlantic could rely on that representation. The expectation did not require complete compliance or prevent the Minister from changing the code. The court found a significant level of non-compliance, but said the detailed evidence had not been brought to the Minister’s attention before the hearing, and noted evidence of some enforcement, including licence suspensions. It therefore found no breach warranting damages to date.
The proceedings were adjourned for mention on the last day of Easter term. The Minister was invited to consider the judgment and tell Atlantic in advance whether the code would be amended or retained. If retained substantially in its then-current form on life rafts, the court said significantly greater enforcement was required. Damages were left for no award in this judgment; the case was adjourned, not finally disposed of.