Kennedy v Australian Fisheries Management Authority [2009] FCA 1485

Kennedy v Australian Fisheries Management Authority [2009] FCA 1485

On construction of s 27 of the Management Plan, the phrase ‘all sequences of that kind’ requires that all permits (active and inactive) are to be included in the calculation of average catch and set history for the period of serious misfortune; there is no statutory basis to limit the calculation to only active permits. While the Panel's reasons were inadequate under s 25D of the Acts Interpretation Act, such inadequacy did not amount to a jurisdictional error and did not vitiate its decision. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Statutory Appeal From Statutory Fishing Rights Allocation Review Panel
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['statutory Interpretation' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'appeals on Questions of Law' 'merits Review' 'regulatory Decision Making']
['administrative Law' 'fisheries Law'] ['statutory Interpretation' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'appeals on Questions of Law' 'merits Review' 'regulatory Decision Making']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Statutory Appeal From Statutory Fishing Rights Allocation Review Panel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Proper construction of s 27 of the Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery Management Plan 2005 regarding calculation of Statutory Fishing Rights (SFRs) after serious misfortune' 'Whether Panel erred in period determination of serious misfortune affecting eligibility for SFRs' 'Whether adequacy of reasons by Panel affected the lawfulness of the decision']

Ratio Decidendi

On construction of s 27 of the Management Plan, the phrase ‘all sequences of that kind’ requires that all permits (active and inactive) are to be included in the calculation of average catch and set history for the period of serious misfortune; there is no statutory basis to limit the calculation to only active permits. While the Panel's reasons were inadequate under s 25D of the Acts Interpretation Act, such inadequacy did not amount to a jurisdictional error and did not vitiate its decision. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the application."]