The High Court has awarded two fishing partners €49,600 after finding the State liable for incorrect advice that led them to fish for scallops in an area where European Union rules prohibited it.
Miss Justice Laffoy ruled that Department of Agriculture officials had wrongly assured Eugene Bates and Brendan Moore that their licensed vessels could fish in Area VIIIa, south of latitude 48°N. The judgment, delivered on 15 November 2011, found that the State was vicariously liable for a failure to ensure officials could consult a correct English translation of the relevant EU regulation.
The case concerned the fishing vessels William Joseph and Alicia, which the partners used for scallop fishing between 1999 and 2005. The court found that Ireland had zero fishing effort allocated for scallops in Area VIIIa under a 1995 EU regulation. The vessels’ licences did not authorise fishing in that area.
The partners relied on assurances from a Department official, including a fax sent on 18 August 2003 saying the Department had found no valid reason to stop them fishing south of latitude 48°N. The advice was wrong. The following day, French authorities arrested both vessels. The boats were released after bonds totalling €27,000 were lodged. At a later hearing in Brest, Bates and the Alicia’s skipper pleaded guilty to illegal-fishing charges. Fines totalling €18,000, damages totalling €48,000 and €1,500 in costs were imposed.
The judge rejected the partners’ claim that the licences or the assurances gave them a legitimate expectation that they could fish in Area VIIIa, because that would have meant expecting a right to do something unlawful. She also found no breach of a right under EU law by the Minister. But she held that, in the circumstances of the specific inquiries, officials owed the partners a common-law duty of care when providing information. The State was liable for negligent misstatement after an incorrect regulation translation was available for officials to consult.
The award comprised €40,000 in agreed outlay connected with the French arrest and proceedings, plus €9,600 for four days when both vessels could not fish. The court rejected the claim for ongoing lost earnings from fishing in Area VIIIa, which EU rules barred, and the claim for a €245,707 capital loss on the Alicia. It was not satisfied that the claimed vessel loss was caused by the misinformation or reasonably foreseeable when the assurances were given.
The High Court entered judgment for the plaintiffs against the defendants for €49,600.