Judgment: 2021-06-04 · Court archive

High Court allows challenge over Killybegs fish-weighing system approval

The court found the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority acted beyond its powers by withholding approval over European Commission concerns about private ownership. The final form of relief and costs remained to be determined.

High Court · [2021] IEHC 345

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Pelagic Weighing Services Limited
  • Killybegs Fishermen’s Organisation Limited (Applicant)
  • Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority (Respondent)
  • Garrett Simons (Judge)
What

The court found the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority acted beyond its powers by withholding approval over European Commission concerns about private ownership. The final form of relief and costs remained to be determined.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Killybegs Port
  • Killybegs
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court has allowed a judicial review challenge over a proposed pier-side fish-weighing system at Killybegs Port, finding that the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority acted beyond its powers by withholding approval because of concerns raised by the European Commission about private ownership.

The High Court has allowed a judicial review challenge over a proposed pier-side fish-weighing system at Killybegs Port, finding that the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority acted beyond its powers by withholding approval because of concerns raised by the European Commission about private ownership.

Mr Justice Garrett Simons ruled on 4 June 2021 that national authorities, rather than the Commission, were responsible for approving systems used to weigh catches on initial landing. The court said there was no legal basis for the Authority to defer its decision pending the Commission’s view or to treat public ownership as a requirement. The judgment did not decide whether the Authority had formally refused approval or merely deferred it; the court said the legal effect was the same because approval had been withheld.

The challenge was brought by Pelagic Weighing Services Limited, which owns the proposed flowscale system, and Killybegs Fishermen’s Organisation Limited. The Authority had not approved the equipment. The Commission had written to the Authority in November 2020, arguing that an industry-owned and operated system would not be appropriate for control weighing. In December, the Authority told the applicants it considered the Commission’s position to preclude use of the equipment for official weighing. The Authority later maintained that it had deferred consideration while seeking clarification, and accepted that the Commission did not have legal competence to approve the system.

The judgment concerned weighing on landing. It distinguished that process from weighing after transport, which may be permitted under a derogation requiring Commission approval of a control plan. Ireland’s control plan was revoked in April 2021, meaning catches had to be weighed on landing.

The court did not rule on separate technical criteria the Authority said might apply to the equipment, including safeguards and monitoring. Those issues had not been fully argued, and the court said they were outside the case as pleaded. It left the parties at liberty to apply if the criteria gave rise to further legal issues.

The court also did not conclusively decide whether the fishermen’s organisation had sufficient interest to bring the case. The Authority accepted that Pelagic Weighing Services, as owner of the system, had standing, which was enough for the challenge to proceed.

The application was allowed and the judge indicated that a declaration broadly in the terms sought would be appropriate. The precise wording of the order, whether a mandatory order directing a decision was needed, and the question of costs were left for further submissions. The case was listed for argument on those matters on 11 June 2021.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review