Cromane Foods Ltd & anor -v- Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries & Food & ors [2016] IESC 6 (22 February 2016)

Cromane Foods Ltd & anor -v- Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries & Food & ors [2016] IESC 6 (22 February 2016)

The Supreme Court held that the concept of operational negligence, as applied by the High Court, was not supported by Irish law. There was no duty of care owed by the Minister to the plaintiffs in the exercise of discretionary powers under complex statutory and EU law regimes. The actions taken by the Minister were in compliance with overriding public duties to implement EU environmental law, and the plaintiffs' claim of legitimate expectation could not override these statutory and EU obligations. The appeal was allowed and the High Court decision was reversed.

Citation
[2016] IESC 6
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Cromane Seafoods Limited; Plaintiff/respondent: O’Sullivan McCarthy Mussel Development Limited; Defendant/appellant: Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; Defendant/appellant: Ireland; Defendant/appellant: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
22 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court decision reversed.
Legal Topics
Operational Negligence, Legitimate Expectation, Ministerial Discretion, State Liability, Duty of Care, Habitats Directive, Aquaculture Regulation
Administrative Law Tort Law Environmental Law European Union Law Operational Negligence Legitimate Expectation Ministerial Discretion State Liability +3 more

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cromane Seafoods Limited

Plaintiff/respondent

O’Sullivan McCarthy Mussel Development Limited

Plaintiff/respondent

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

Defendant/appellant

Ireland

Defendant/appellant

Attorney General

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the State is liable in tort for operational negligence in the exercise of ministerial discretion regarding environmental regulation and aquaculture licensing.
  2. 2 Whether a duty of care existed between the Minister and the plaintiffs in the context of implementing EU environmental law.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs had a legitimate expectation regarding the continuation of their business operations.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the concept of operational negligence, as applied by the High Court, was not supported by Irish law. There was no duty of care owed by the Minister to the plaintiffs in the exercise of discretionary powers under complex statutory and EU law regimes. The actions taken by the Minister were in compliance with overriding public duties to implement EU environmental law, and the plaintiffs' claim of legitimate expectation could not override these statutory and EU obligations. The appeal was allowed and the High Court decision was reversed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court decision reversed.

Orders

  • Judgment for the defendants/appellants; plaintiffs' claim dismissed.
  • No order as to damages, as liability was not established.