The High Court quashed the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine’s decision to revoke Murphy’s Irish Seafood Limited’s aquaculture licence for two salmon-farm sites at Gearhies, Bantry Bay, Co Cork. Ms Justice Baker ruled on 1 June 2017 that the company had not received the notice required by law before revocation.
The case concerned a letter sent on 21 January 2016, which said the Minister had approved withdrawal of the company’s permission to continue operating while its licence-renewal application remained undetermined. The letter cited alleged failures to maintain the operation properly and comply with conditions of a foreshore licence. It also directed the company to remove structures and equipment within four weeks.
The company sought judicial review, arguing that the letter could not revoke its licence because the Minister had not followed the statutory procedure. That procedure required at least 28 days’ written notice stating that revocation was under consideration, identifying its grounds, and allowing the licensee to make representations that the Minister must consider.
The dispute followed a hurricane-force storm in February 2014 that destroyed most of the farm’s 235,000 fish and almost all its equipment. The company and the department then agreed a programme of maintenance and engineering work. Over the following months, they exchanged correspondence and carried out inspections. They disagreed about outstanding work, including the condition and location of cages and anchors, navigation markers, and what needed to be completed before any restocking.
The Minister relied on that history as sufficient notice and engagement. The judge rejected that argument. She found that the January 2015 warning did not state the grounds with the required specificity. Although a later email described alleged failures relating to mooring ropes, anchors and design confirmation, it arrived 16 days after the warning, leaving only 12 days in the 28-day period. The Minister also did not engage with the company’s representations within that period. Later exchanges did not cure the problem: some issues had been addressed, and the Minister had not clearly responded to the company’s final substantive proposals.
The judge said the grounds had to be clear enough to allow meaningful, case-specific representations within the statutory timeframe. A broad reference to inadequate maintenance, or reasons pieced together from correspondence over many months, did not meet that requirement. She also noted that section 19A gave the Minister no power to withdraw the company’s right to continue operating pending the renewal decision. However, the incorrect statutory reference in the 2016 letter did not itself invalidate it; the decisive defect was failure to comply with the mandatory notice procedure.
The court made an order of certiorari quashing the 21 January 2016 decision. The judgment did not determine the outstanding licence-renewal application.