BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
High Court of Ireland Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Ireland Decisions >> Waterville Fisheries Development Ltd -v- Aquaculture Licenses Appeals Board & Ors [2014] IEHC 248 (08 April 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2014/H248.html Cite as: [2014] IEHC 248 |
||
[New search] [Help]
Judgment Title: Waterville Fisheries Development Limited -v- Aquaculture Licenses Appeals Board & Ors Neutral Citation: [2014] IEHC 248 High Court Record Number: 2013 40 JR Date of Delivery: 08/04/2014 Court: High Court Composition of Court: Judgment by: Hogan J. Status of Judgment: Approved |
Neutral Citation: [2014] IEHC 248 THE HIGH COURT [2013 No. 40 J.R.] BETWEEN WATERVILLE FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT LIMITED APPLICANT AND
AQUACULTURE LICENSES APPEALS BOARD AND THE MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND THE MARINE RESPONDENTS AND
(BY ORDER) SILVER KING SEA FOODS LIMITED T/A MARINE HARVEST IRELAND NOTICE PARTY JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Hogan delivered on 8th April, 2014 1. Where the Oireachtas has provided by statute for an exclusive mechanism of challenging the validity of a particular administrative decision by means of judicial review, is it necessary to serve every party to that decision within the time specified, even though they may have no interest in participating in these judicial review proceedings? This, in essence, is the most critical of the preliminary questions which I am now required to determine. The issues arise in the following way. 2. This is an application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of a decision of the Acquacultural Licenses Appeals Board (“the Board”) dated 31st October, 2012. By that decision the Board confirmed an earlier decision of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 22nd March 2011 to grant a temporary licence for the amendment of operating procedures to the notice party, Silver King Seafoods Ltd. (“Silver King”) in respect of the latter’s salmon farming site at Deenish Island, Ballinskelligs Bay, Co. Kerry. 3. That salmon farm itself first become operational in 1989. Silver King acquired the farm in 2005 and operated the farm pursuant to a Licence No. T 6/202 AQ 199. In January 2010 the Waterville Fisheries Development Group (“the Group”) complained to the Minister contending that this licence should be revoked. Following the making of submissions by the relevant parties, the Minister made a decision on 9th April 2010 not to revoke the licence. On the 28th April 2010 the Minister informed the parties that the licence was not to be revoked. 4. In February 2011 Silver King applied to the Minister for permission to amend the licence to permit new stocking arrangements at the farm. Silver King maintained that this new stocking arrangements would allow for what is termed an “all out, all in” arrangement which would permit the stocking of 800,000 smolt every two years rather than the existing arrangement of 400,000 smolt per year. While Silver King contend that this would lead to an amelioration of the environmental impact of the farm and that this would be in line with best international practice, this is hotly disputed by the applicant and others. 5. At all events, the Minister granted the licence amendment on 22nd March 2011, but this was appealed by a number of objectors to the Board. The identity and number of objectors is, as we shall see, a matter of some importance in second preliminary issue I am required to determine. While I will return to this matter shortly, it is contended that the failure to serve all the parties to the appeal within the statutory time period is fatal to the validity of these proceedings. 6. While s. 73(2) of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1997 (“the 1997 Act”), requires that any application to quash a decision of the Board must be made by way of an application for judicial review under O. 84 of the Rules of the Superior Courts and that such application must be heard on notice, it has been agreed that I should determine three questions as a preliminary issue. It has been further agreed that these three preliminary issues will be adjudicated finally by me, subject only to an appeal from my decision. 7. Before proceeding further it is necessary to record one critical feature of the procedure adopted by the applicant. It had filed an appeal to the Board, but so also had Inland Fisheries Ireland and Salmon Watch Ireland. While it is that these proceedings were commenced within the three month period specified in s. 73(2) of the 1997 Act, the proceedings were not, in fact, served on either Salmon Watch Ireland or Inland Fisheries Ireland within that relevant period. As it happens these bodies have indicated they do not wish to take part in the judicial review proceedings. One of the critical questions which I have to consider as a preliminary issue is whether or not the failure to effect such service amounts in the circumstances to a jurisdictional bar to these judicial review proceedings. Preliminary Issues
(2) Whether the applicant complied with the requirements of s. 73(2) of the 1997 Act regarding time and service and, if it did not, whether the degree of non-compliance was such as to preclude the applicant from maintaining these proceedings? (3) Whether the applicant is in time to challenge or otherwise question the non-revocation by the Minister of the licence in April, 2010. 9. The first objection to the applicant’s locus standi is that inasmuch as it is a company limited by guarantee it is simply being used as a vehicle to avoid any potential liability for costs on the part of individuals who might otherwise have commenced proceedings. This objection, if otherwise well founded, might well justify the making of an application for security for costs, although consideration would now also have to be given in that context to the possible implications of Part 2 of the Protection of the Environment Act 2011 so far as any such application might be concerned. 10. There is, however, no evidence at all that the applicant company was formed simply for the purpose of circumventing these costs rules, such as, for example, formed the backdrop to Lancefort Ltd. v. An Bord Pleanála (No.2) [1998] IESC 14, [1999] 2 IR 270. Indeed, it was incorporated and formed long before any issue giving rise to these proceedings ever arose. 11. The actual appeal to the respondent was, however, expressed to be in the name of the Waterville Fisheries Development Group (“the Group”) as distinct from the name of the company which is the applicant in the present proceedings, Waterville Fisheries Development Ltd. (“the company”). In the notice of the appeal to the Board the Group described itself as a “community based Group dedicated to the protection and enhancement of the salmon and seatrout fishery of the Lough Currane catchment.” 12. It is clear from the affidavit of the company secretary of the applicant company, Kevin O’Sullivan of the 26th September 2013 that the company and the applicant are in truth one and the same organisation with the same address. According to that affidavit, the company “is managed and made up of a mixture of the local angling association and associated bodies.” Mr. O’Sullivan makes the point that the entity is frequently referred to “in common parlance without the full corporate description.” 13. I consider that in these particular circumstances the applicant must be regarded as having the requisite locus standi, since it is, in essence, one and the same entity as the Group who lodged the appeal. It has been emphasised on many occasions that the locus standi rules are, in reality, flexible rules of practice which are ultimately concerned with the conservation and proper use of judicial power: see, e.g., the classic judgments of Henchy J. in Cahill v. Sutton [1980] I.R. 269 and that of Walsh J. in The State (Lynch) v. Cooney [1982] I.R. 247. Viewed thus, the locus standi principles are accordingly concerned with the underlying reality of the litigant’s interest. 14. In the (admittedly unusual) circumstances of the present case, therefore, it is clear that both the Group and company share the same interest in challenging this decision as they are to all intents and purposes the same entity. The only true legal disadvantage which might possibly attach to permitting, as it were, the promiscuous inter-changeability of the group and the company is in the area of potential liability for costs. As has already been noted, however, this concern can satisfactorily be addressed, where necessary, in the context of an application for security for costs. 15. I will accordingly answer the first question in the affirmative. Question 2: Whether the applicant complied with the requirements of s. 73(2) of the 1997Act regarding time and service?
(a) shall be made within the period of three months commencing on the date on which the decision or determination was made, and (b) shall be made by notice of motion (grounded in the manner specified in the Order in respect of an ex parte motion for leave) which shall be served on—
(ii) if the application relates to a determination referred to in subsection (1) (b), the Board and each party or each other party, as the case may be, to the appeal, or (iii) any other person specified for that purpose by order of the High Court, and leave shall not be granted unless the High Court is satisfied that there are substantial grounds for contending that the decision or determination is invalid or ought to be quashed.” 18. The present proceedings are, however, governed by s. 73(2)(b)(ii) since they relate to a determination of the Board on an appeal. In these circumstances an applicant seeking leave to commence judicial review proceedings under s. 73 must serve the “Board and each party or each other party”. Here it is conceded that the applicant never served Salmon Watch Ireland (“SWI”) or Inland Fisheries Ireland (“IFI”) within the three month statutory time limit. It is clear, however, that these bodies were served after that time limit had elapsed on 30th January, 2013. It is also not in dispute that they indicated that they had no interest in participating in these proceedings. 19. It is in these circumstances that the Board, Silver Lang and, to some degree, the Minister all maintain that the present application should be dismissed in limine by reason of the failure to serve these particular parties. When pressed, these respondents do not resile from admitting that such service would have been an empty formality since those parties who were not served had no interest in taking part in these judicial review proceedings. It is nevertheless said that this is a mandatory requirement of statute which subsection gives no power to relax. 20. The respondents thus contend for an absolutely literal interpretation of s. 73(2). It is true that the literal words are often the best guide to the meaning of the statute. As Denham J. said in Board of Management of St. Malaga’s National School v. Minister for Education [2010] IESC 57, [2011] 1 IR 362:
22. All of this means that s. 73(2) cannot be read in the unyielding fashion urged by the Board and Silver Lang. It would be easy to envisage circumstances where dozens - perhaps even hundreds - of parties have appealed a particular decision to the Board. If the Board’s argument were correct then it would mean that an application for leave under s. 73(2) would have to be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds by reason of the fact that, for example, only 49 out of 50 parties have been served, although though such a party might well perhaps prove difficult to serve or where they could not be easily located, even if they had no interest whatever in such proceedings. If this, indeed, were the true interpretation of s. 73(2)(b), then it would serve to place a huge logistical and administrative burden on the right of access to the courts which might not readily be capable of objective justification. 23. In these circumstances it is necessary to look at the requirements of s. 73(2)(b) through the prism of this constitutional right of access to courts. This approach is underscored by several contemporary authorities of which it is, perhaps, sufficient to mention only Re MJBCH Ltd. (in liquidation) [2013] IEHC 256 and Dunmanus Bay Mussels Ltd. v. Acquaculture Licences Appeals Board [2013] IEHC 214. 24. In Re MJMBCH the plaintiff claimed damages for personal injuries against the defendant company. She had issued proceedings without realising that an order had been made by this Court some two months previously providing for the winding-up of the company. When the proceedings were then served on the company, the plaintiff’s solicitor received a letter from the official liquidator advising them of this development. The plaintiff’s solicitors then applied to this Court for an order pursuant to s. 222 of the Companies Act 1963 (“the 1963 Act”) seeking the retrospective leave of the court to the commencement of the proceedings: Such an application was considered necessary in view of the requirements of s.222 of the 1963 Act which provides that no such action can be commenced without the prior leave of this Court. 25. As the plaintiff had not commenced the proceedings without complying with this statutory requirement did this, however, mean that the proceedings were a nullity. Applying the principles enunciated in Murphy v. Greene [1990] 2 I.R. 560, Finlay Geoghegan J. concluded that s. 222 should not be construed as prohibiting the retrospective grant of leave:
27. I took a similar view in my judgment in Dunmanus Bay Mussels. This was a case in which leave to apply for judicial review had been granted ex parte and the parties served within the three month period, but where the applicant had overlooked the fact that the proceedings were, indeed, governed by s. 73(2)(b) of the 1997 Act with the result that the respondents were not put on notice of the application for leave in the manner required by statute. 28. While the actual order granting leave was set aside by consent, I took the view that the proceedings were nonetheless not manifestly irregular:
It is nevertheless clear that one key objective of the sub-section - namely, the timely notification of the nature of the intended claim - has already been satisfied. Moreover, were the notice of motion seeking the relief to be itself amended, the respondent and the notice parties would then have the opportunity to oppose the grant of leave, so that the other main objective of the sub-section would also have been satisfied in such circumstances. Second, a conclusion that the non-compliance with these statutory requirements rendered the proceedings wholly irregular and thus beyond the capacity of the courts to rescue by means of an appropriate amendment would amount to a manifestly disproportionate interference with the applicant’s constitutional right of access to the courts. In Murphy v. Greene [1990] 2 I.R. 566 the Supreme Court held that the requirements of the (then) s. 260 of the Mental Treatment Act 1945 (which subjected certain types of civil proceedings to a prior application for leave on notice requirement) amounted to a curtailment of the constitutional right of access to the courts and, as such, it had to be strictly construed. As Finlay C.J. said of the section it constituted ([1990] 2 I.R. 560, 572):“prima facie a curtailment of the constitutional right of access to the courts to the extent that it requires a precondition of leave of the court for the bringing by him of a claim for damages for an asserted wrong.” Much the same can be said by analogy so far as the present case is concerned. As I have already indicated, once the applicants were served (even if irregularly) with the proceedings within time, the statutory objectives which s. 73(2) seeks to serve would not be substantially compromised by now granting leave to amend the proceedings. Conversely, the consequences for the applicant would be at least as severe as that presaged by Finlay Geoghegan J. in Re MJBCH with regard to the personal injuries litigant in that case. Indeed, whereas in that case there was a risk that the plaintiff’s action might be statute-barred were leave refused and she was required to commence her personal injuries proceedings afresh, this would certainly be the case here if no such leave to amend were to be granted. Nor can it even be said that the automatic nullification of the proceedings by reason of the non-compliance with the statutory provisions is itself an object of the legislation. No one would credibly suggest that the Oireachtas sought to lay a form of forensic trap for litigants who through some mischance have not perfectly complied with these statutory requirements. On the contrary, the Oireachtas instead merely insisted by the enactment of s. 73(2) that potential respondents receive adequate notice of the claim and have an opportunity to be heard in opposition to the application for leave. Once the objectives are at least substantially safeguarded, then it may be inferred that the Oireachtas had no interest in seeing that applicants were struck out in limine merely by reason of a non-compliance with statutory requirements which did not otherwise unfairly prejudice the interests of the respondent and notice parties. This is especially true in a state bound by the rule of law, where, in the words of Denham J. in White v. Dublin City Council [2004] 1 IR 545, 564: “any person affected by an administrative decision has a constitutionally protected right of access to courts to contest its legality.” 30. This approach is also supported by the case law dealing with the corresponding provisions of s. 50 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, (and its earlier statutory antecedents). It is true that in KSK Enterprises Ltd v. An Bord Pleanála [1994] 2 I.R. 128 the Supreme Court held that the obligation to serve parties within the relevant period was mandatory. That case concerned, however, the failure to serve a developer with the time period. Finlay C.J. stressed ([1994] 2 I.R. 128, 136) the importance of this:-
32. This is also the conclusion which accords with first principles. If an objector to the grant of a statutory licence were to apply to have that decision to grant quashed, only the grantor and the grantee of the licence would be necessary parties to the judicial review proceedings. Other objectors might apply to be joined to the proceedings, but absent an express court order to that effect, they could not otherwise be regarded as relevant parties. 33. The same is true here. The reference in s. 73(2)(b)(ii) to “each party or each other party…to the appeal” must, therefore, be understood as being a reference to each relevant party. Quite obviously the Board must be a party (because the subsection says so), but so also must the grantee of the licence. Other objectors do not fall into this category because they would not have been regarded as necessary parties to any judicial review proceedings governed solely by Ord. 84 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. As Geoghegan J. said in McCarthy it was not the intention of the Oireachtas to effect such a change by providing for a statutory scheme governing applications to quash particular types of administrative decisions. 34. Nor can it be said that this conclusion is at variance with the judgment of Quirke J. in Murray v. An Bord Pleanála [2000] 1 IR 58. This was an application for judicial review to quash a decision of An Bord Pleanála which had allowed an appeal by an objector against the grant of planning permission. Quirke J. noted that under the terms of s. 82(3)(a) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963, (the forerunner to s. 50), the planning authority against whose decision an appeal is made is expressly defined as a party to appeal. It followed that the Oireachtas had expressly ordered that such an authority must be served. But this really just another way of saying that the Oireachtas had designated such planning authorities as relevant parties for the purposes of subsequent judicial review proceedings of An Bord Pleanála. Viewed thus, Murray provides no support for the wide proposition urged here by the Board and Sliver King that all other objectors who lodged separate and independent appeals to the Board should be regarded as relevant parties to the judicial review proceedings. 35. In summary, therefore, I would reject the contention that the proceedings should be struck out by reason of the failure to serve SWI and IFI. If s. 73(2)(b) were to be read in the absolutely literal fashion urged by the Board and Silver King, it would mean that the present proceedings would have to be dismissed by reason of a failure to serve parties who were never necessary parties in the first place - irrespective of whether they did or did not wish to take part - and even though this could have no real bearing on the real issues in the proceedings. 36. Adapting here the reasoning of Finlay Geoghegan J. in Re MJBCH, I am of the view that such an interpretation would be manifestly at odds with the applicant’s constitutional right of access to the courts. 37. It follows, therefore, that s. 73(2)(b)(ii) must be read as referring to a relevant or necessary party. Since SWI or IFI were never a relevant or necessary party in this sense, I would accordingly reject the argument that the proceedings should be dismissed on this ground. Question 3: Whether the applicant is in time to challenge or otherwise question the non-revocation by the Minister of the licence in April, 2010. Conclusions |
