The High Court has rejected Carbery Fishing Limited’s claims over the allocation of 2010 Spring mackerel quota to its vessel, the MFV Atlantic Quest, finding that the company had no legitimate expectation it would be treated like vessels already in the over-65-foot quota category.
The judgment, delivered by Miss Justice Laffoy on 15 November 2011, addressed the company’s challenge to the Minister’s 27 January 2010 decision to continue the previous year’s quota arrangements pending a review. Although the Atlantic Quest had been lengthened and licensed at more than 65 feet, it was allocated quota on the same basis as in 2009, when it fell within the under-65-foot category. Its January authorisation allowed it to catch 32 tonnes of mackerel. The MFV Village Queen, which replaced a vessel with an over-65-foot track record, was authorised to catch 263 tonnes.
The company argued that it had a legitimate expectation of equal treatment with other over-65-foot vessels, and that the Minister’s decision breached its constitutional property rights and its right of access to the courts. It sought a declaration that the Atlantic Quest was entitled to fish from the over-65-foot allocation. The claim for damages was left for a later stage if liability were established. A separate claim for an injunction concerning the Autumn 2010 season had become moot before the hearing.
The judge found that the Licensing Authority’s May 2009 approval concerned the vessel’s licence only, not quota. The letter expressly directed quota questions to the Minister. The Minister’s July 2009 letter also warned that modifying a vessel might not secure entry into the over-65-foot mackerel allocation. The court said the two licensing and quota regimes were distinct and that the Minister had broad statutory discretion to change quota allocation arrangements.
The court also found the Atlantic Quest’s circumstances differed from vessels that had fished in the over-65-foot category in 2009, and from the Village Queen, which replaced a vessel with the relevant track record. It concluded that the company had not established unlawful discrimination or a breach of its constitutional rights. Its access-to-court claim also failed: the underlying dispute remained for the court to decide after the Minister’s decision, and the company pursued the substantive action.
The court ruled against the company on liability. It said the proceedings would be dismissed, subject to any submissions the parties wished to make.