The High Court has ruled that a fisherman is precluded from pursuing claims over the reclassification of his vessel and later fishing policies because he did not challenge the relevant public decisions within the applicable time limits.
Ms Justice Ni Raifeartaigh delivered the preliminary ruling on 13 February 2019 in plenary proceedings brought by Colum Browne against the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Ireland and the Attorney General. The substantive case sought damages and declaratory relief concerning the MFV Áine Íde and access to herring and mackerel fisheries.
The judgment records that the vessel was built in 1978 and registered at 65.5 feet. After Mr Browne bought it in 1993, licences and authorisations referred to it as being in the over-65-foot fleet. In 2003, the Marine Survey Office re-measured it under an EU regulation and recorded its length as 63.97 feet. The change was notified to Mr Browne that December and entered on the register in April 2004.
From at least 2006, the vessel was not authorised to fish for herring or mackerel in the over-65-foot category. The judgment says it appears the vessel was authorised in the under-65-foot category. In 2011 and 2012, ministerial policy directives allocated fishing opportunities by reference to track record. The Áine Íde did not qualify for the mackerel tiers and was not included in the ring-fenced herring fisheries identified in the judgment.
The Minister argued that the proceedings were, in substance, a late challenge to public decisions that should have been brought by judicial review. Mr Browne submitted that each fishing season involved a fresh allocation decision and that the particular damage he complained of arose only when the 2011 and 2012 directives took effect.
The judge held that the claims could not succeed without challenging the validity of earlier decisions, including the 2003 re-measurement. She found the claim amounted to a collateral challenge to decisions of a public law character and that judicial review time limits applied. The exception discussed in earlier case law concerned a person defending proceedings brought by a public authority; this case did not fall within it. The judge added that, even if she had discretion to extend time, she would not extend it on the circumstances presented.
The court therefore found that Mr Browne was precluded from pursuing the reliefs and had failed to challenge the decisions promptly or within the applicable time limits. It did not decide whether the claims were time-barred under section 11 of the Statute of Limitations Act 1957, because that issue was not applicable in light of its public law ruling. The defendants had not pursued the separate issue of delay, so the court made no finding on it. The judgment determined preliminary issues; it did not decide the underlying claims on their merits.