Lough Swilly Shellfish Growers Co-Operative Society Ltd & anor v Bradley & anor [2013] IESC 16 (13 March 2013)

Lough Swilly Shellfish Growers Co-Operative Society Ltd & anor v Bradley & anor [2013] IESC 16 (13 March 2013)

Section 19A, as inserted by s. 101 of the 2006 Act, was in force upon the commencement of the 2006 Act and did not require a separate commencement order under the 1997 Act; the appeal was also procedurally barred due to delay and failure to meet criteria for extension of time.

Citation
[2013] IESC 16
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Lough Swilly Shellfish Growers Co-Operative Society Ltd.; Plaintiff/respondent: Atlanfish Ltd.; Defendant/appellant: Danny Bradley; Defendant/appellant: Robert Ivers
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
13 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Statutory Interpretation, Commencement of Legislation, Aquaculture Licensing, Trespass, Procedural Law
Administrative Law Environmental Law Property Law Statutory Interpretation Commencement of Legislation Aquaculture Licensing Trespass Procedural Law

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 3 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lough Swilly Shellfish Growers Co-Operative Society Ltd.

Plaintiff/respondent

Atlanfish Ltd.

Plaintiff/respondent

Danny Bradley

Defendant/appellant

Robert Ivers

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s. 19A of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1997, as inserted by s. 101 of the Sea Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006, required a separate commencement order to be effective; whether the plaintiffs had title to maintain an action for trespass after licence expiry but pending renewal; whether the appeal was procedurally barred due to delay or failure to argue the point below.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 19A, as inserted by s. 101 of the 2006 Act, was in force upon the commencement of the 2006 Act and did not require a separate commencement order under the 1997 Act; the appeal was also procedurally barred due to delay and failure to meet criteria for extension of time.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Affirmation of High Court order restraining defendants from entering the licensed area.
  • Damages award of €25,000 to plaintiffs upheld.