The High Court has refused an application by State defendants to strike out a claim by fishermen and a fishing company over compensation following the European Union ban on drift-net fishing for tuna.
In a judgment delivered on 15 April 2011, Miss Justice Laffoy dismissed the defendants’ application. The ruling means the plaintiffs’ case can proceed beyond this attempt to end it; it does not decide whether they are entitled to compensation or whether the defendants are liable.
The plaintiffs’ claim arises from an EU ban that took effect on 1 January 2002. They say the Fisheries Minister represented in 1998 that compensation and other support would be available when the ban began. They also allege that the Minister sought an amendment making the proposed compensation scheme optional for member states, and that Ireland then chose not to implement it. These remain allegations in the proceedings.
The defendants sought dismissal under Order 19, rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, arguing that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, and under the court’s inherent jurisdiction, arguing that the case had no reasonable prospect of success or was bound to fail.
The judge treated the alleged ministerial representations as not denied for the purposes of the application and assumed the plaintiffs could prove them at trial. She held that the pleadings could not be struck out under Order 19, rule 28 because it was not possible to conclude that they disclosed no cause of action known to law or likely to be established.
On the separate inherent-jurisdiction ground, the judge said she was not convinced that the plaintiffs’ reliance on the EU court-reference procedure overcame the defendants’ argument about the limits of Irish-court jurisdiction in matters within the EU’s exclusive fisheries competence. But she found the defendants had not established a clear case that the plaintiffs’ claim under Irish law, based on legitimate expectation, must fail.
The judge said the plaintiffs could argue that the failure to receive a compensation scheme was attributable to the Fisheries Minister’s actions. She also noted possible difficulties for the claim, including that policy considerations or a lack of available funds might be raised. Those issues were not determined on this application and could require evidence later.
The order was limited to dismissing the defendants’ application to strike out the proceedings. The court did not rule on the merits of the compensation claim.