The High Court has ruled that the complete removal of refrigerated sea water tanks from the fishing vessel Sea Spray Junior restored it to its original dry hold character and did not count as a “modification” under the relevant fishing policy directives.
Mr Justice Charleton delivered the judgment on 29 June 2010 in a case stated under section 18 of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 2003. The court answered four questions referred by the licensing appeals officer; it did not grant a fishing licence or decide the pending licence appeal.
The vessel, built in 1977 and owned by Michael Faherty of Inis Mór, was initially registered as a white fish trawler. Refrigerated sea water tanks were installed in 1984, reducing its fish capacity from 150 cubic metres to 110 cubic metres. The tanks were removed in 2007, returning the vessel to its original configuration, although surplus generator and water-cooling equipment remained.
A December 2005 licence application by Tony Faherty, whom the judgment identifies as Michael Faherty’s brother, led to a conditional offer. That offer was withdrawn after it emerged that the vessel had been in the refrigerated sea water pelagic fleet. The first appeal was refused. A later application, made after the tanks had been removed, sought to replace two vessels in the polyvalent fleet with the Sea Spray Junior.
The policy directives restricted the licensing of certain vessels with pelagic wet storage tanks in the polyvalent segment. The court held that the directives applied to the vessel and were subject to the Interpretation Act 2005. On interpretation, it said the wording did not require a finding that every vessel ever equipped with such tanks was barred, regardless of its present condition. In this vessel’s particular circumstances, complete removal of the tanks was a restoration to its original character, not a modification that left it retaining the characteristics of a tank vessel.
The judge said the first appeal refusal could not be criticised on the vessel’s condition at that time. The circumstances had since changed. The appeals officer could make the decision on the later appeal, and a licence condition could be considered if appropriate. The judgment was expressly confined to the particular history and circumstances of the Sea Spray Junior.