The High Court has rejected a challenge by two fishing companies over the qualifications required for Spanish officers serving on Irish-registered fishing vessels.
Castletown Fisheries Limited, an Irish-registered Spanish-owned company, and its Spanish parent Pesquera Baqueiro S.A. operated the MFV Castletown, MFV Dunboy and MFV Dinish. Their Spanish officers held Spanish qualifications and had also obtained UK certificates of equivalent competency.
The dispute arose after a Marine Survey Office inspection of the MFV Castletown in December 2006 found that it was not correctly manned under Irish regulations. The vessel was detained in January 2007 before being released by the District Court the following month.
The companies argued that a UK certificate of equivalent competency should be treated in Ireland as a British certificate of competency under a 1995 recognition order. They also relied on the fact that Spanish-qualified crews had worked aboard the vessels for more than 20 years without the authorities objecting to their qualifications.
Mr Justice O’Neill rejected both arguments. He found that the 1995 order expressly recognised British certificates of competency, not certificates of equivalent competency. Although both documents could have similar practical effect in Britain, they were obtained through different processes and there was no automatic or “knock-on” recognition in Ireland.
The court also held that Spanish qualifications could have been submitted through the separate statutory mutual-recognition procedure. Three officers had begun that process in 2008, but their applications were not completed after the Marine Survey Office found insufficient evidence of equivalence, including concerns about English-language ability and knowledge of Irish legal and administrative procedures.
On legitimate expectation, the judge found that the earlier tolerance of Spanish-qualified crews amounted at most to lax enforcement of the rules. That could not create a legal entitlement to continued non-enforcement, particularly where professional standards affected safety at sea.
The proceedings were not rejected for delay, but all substantive reliefs were refused.