The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the State parties in a dispute over safety standards for life rafts on small fishing vessels, while concluding that the High Court’s finding of a legitimate expectation could not stand. The Court made no substantive order on the appeal and left costs to be agreed or addressed after submissions.
Atlantic Marine Supplies Ltd and its principal shareholder, Sean Rodgers, had claimed that failures to enforce official standards caused substantial business losses. The company supplied and maintained boat safety equipment. The case concerned how the Department of Transport’s Code of Practice for fishing vessels under 15 metres should be read alongside Marine Notice No. 8 of 2005, which listed non-SOLAS life rafts accepted for certain vessels.
The High Court had interpreted the Code with the Marine Notice and found an implied representation that the Code would be reasonably enforced. It rejected the plaintiffs’ negligence and breach of statutory duty claims, and found no breach of the legitimate expectation or entitlement to damages. It dismissed the claim without making a declaration or other substantive order, but made no order as to costs.
On appeal, the State parties challenged the legitimate-expectation analysis. The plaintiffs did not appeal the dismissal of their claim or argue that the expectation had been breached; their cross-appeal concerned costs. The State parties did not challenge the High Court’s interpretation of the Code, which the plaintiffs accepted.
Justice O’Donnell said that once the interpretation issue had been resolved, existing public-law remedies were adequate if the statutory licensing regime was not enforced. He concluded that the combination of the company’s certification, publication of the Code and the 2006 legislation did not amount to a representation capable of creating a legitimate expectation. He also noted that different bodies had roles in publishing the Code, issuing notices and licensing vessels.
The Court said its conclusion changed nothing in the operative outcome because the plaintiffs’ claim had already been dismissed. It declined to make a declaration about the Code’s interpretation and dismissed the State parties’ appeal. On costs, Justice O’Donnell expressed the preliminary view that a modest contribution to the plaintiffs’ costs might meet the justice of the case. The parties could agree the amount; otherwise, the Court would hear submissions.