The High Court has quashed the Aquaculture Licences Appeals Board’s decision to grant Lett & Company Limited an aquaculture licence for Bed 30A in Wexford Harbour, ruling that the board failed to state its reasons. The matter will not return to the board, and the court made no order against the Minister responsible for marine and natural resources.
Deerland Construction Limited brought judicial review proceedings challenging the board’s decision of 17 July 2007 and a subsequent ministerial letter declining to process its foreshore lease applications. Deerland had planning permission for developments that overlapped the licensed area and said the licence created a major problem for its plans.
The board had rejected Deerland’s appeal and determined Lett’s licence application as if it had been made to the board in the first instance. Its written determination referred to the appeal, a technical adviser’s report, statutory considerations and the public interest, but did not explain how those matters led to the decision. The board’s meeting minutes also did not reveal its reasoning.
Section 40(8) of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1997, inserted in 2001, required the board to state the main reasons and considerations for its determination and notify parties of them. Mr Justice Kelly held that saying the board was satisfied the licence was in the public interest stated a conclusion, not the reasons behind it. The technical report and later affidavit evidence could not cure the failure to provide reasons in the determination itself.
The court therefore quashed the board’s determination insofar as it concerned Bed 30A. It did not rule on Deerland’s other challenges to the board’s procedures, including complaints about access to documents and the absence of an oral hearing.
The judge held that the Minister’s original licence decision did not revive when the board’s determination was quashed: the board’s determination had already annulled it under the Act. The result was that no aquaculture licence was in place for Bed 30A. The judge declined to remit the case to the board, either to give reasons or to reconsider the appeal, leaving the Minister to consider any applications by Lett for an aquaculture licence and by Deerland for foreshore rights. The court made no order on the Minister’s letter, expecting him to deal with the matter in that way.