The Court of Appeal has dismissed a fisherman’s appeal against the dismissal of his claim over the reclassification of his fishing boat and the loss of access to over-65-foot mackerel and herring fisheries.
The court held that, whatever form the claims took, succeeding would require the fisherman to challenge administrative decisions about the vessel’s remeasurement and classification, subsequent licence refusals and quota allocations. Because he had not brought those challenges within the applicable judicial review time limits, his plenary proceedings amounted to a collateral attack on the decisions, the court said. It also found no basis to extend time.
The fisherman owns the MFV Áine Íde, built in 1978 and purchased by him in 1993. It was registered as 65.5 feet long. In 2003, the Marine Survey Office remeasured it for gross tonnage purposes using a different definition of length. The resulting measurement was 63.97 feet, and the Register of Fishing Boats was changed in 2004. The judgment says the boat was then treated as under 65 feet for fishing authorisations, although the Marine Survey Office later confirmed there had been no physical change to it.
The fisherman argued that the remeasurement rules applied only to tonnage and did not change the boat’s length for general classification. He said the Minister was told of the problem in 2006 but failed to correct it. He challenged the 2011 and 2012 quota policy directives and sought declarations, damages and other relief, including for alleged tort, constitutional and EU-law breaches. The defendants argued that the proceedings were out of time and improperly bypassed public-law challenges.
The High Court had decided preliminary issues, finding that the claim involved challenges to public-law decisions that had not been brought promptly. It did not decide the statutory limitation issue or the separate issue of delay causing prejudice. The Court of Appeal upheld that approach. It said the 2011 and 2012 directives did not create fresh causes of action; their effects were further or continuing damage from earlier decisions. It also concluded that EU law did not require a preliminary reference on the issues raised.
The appeal court did not determine the underlying merits of the fisherman’s allegations. It upheld the High Court’s dismissal of the claim. On appeal costs, it stated a provisional view that the defendants should receive them; the fisherman was given 14 days to make written submissions seeking a different order, with 14 days for the defendants to reply. In default, the proposed costs order would be made.