The High Court refused Waterville Fisheries Development Limited leave to seek judicial review of an appeals board decision that upheld an amendment to a temporary salmon farm licence at Deenish Island in Ballinskelligs Bay, Co Kerry.
In a judgment delivered on 25 July 2014, Mr Justice Gerard Hogan said the Aquaculture Licences Appeals Board had erred in law by failing to give reasons for its decision not to hold an oral hearing, or objectively justify why it had not done so. But he ruled that this failure did not establish substantial grounds to argue that the licensing decision was invalid or should be quashed.
The case concerned a 2011 amendment allowing Silver King Sea Foods Limited, trading as Marine Harvest Ireland, to change stocking arrangements at its salmon farm. The company said the change would allow 800,000 smolt to be stocked every two years instead of 400,000 each year, and would reduce the farm’s environmental impact. Waterville disputed that claim.
The Minister granted the amendment on 22 March 2011. After objectors appealed, the Board confirmed the decision on 31 October 2012. Waterville’s application for leave to pursue judicial review challenged, among other matters, the Board’s refusal of the group’s request for an oral hearing and its failure to provide reasons.
Justice Hogan rejected the argument that the Board was unaware of the request. He also found that its letter rejecting the objections was sufficient to notify the parties that no oral hearing would be held, as required by the legislation.
The judgment said the Board’s statutory discretion to hold an oral hearing was wide, but not arbitrary: it had to be exercised fairly and lawfully, and reasons were required for refusing a hearing. However, the judge distinguished this licensing assessment from cases involving central disputes of fact that could not fairly be resolved without oral evidence. No central factual conflict had been identified in this case, and the Board was entitled to conclude that a hearing was unnecessary.
The court also found that the applicant’s other grounds, including claims involving environmental precaution and manifest error, were pleaded too vaguely to support leave. Justice Hogan had previously ruled that Waterville had standing and that the proceedings were validly constituted. On the remaining grounds, he was not satisfied that the statutory substantial-grounds threshold was met and refused leave.