SQUID FISHERY MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED V MINISTER OF FISHERIES And Anor CA CA39/04
The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the 2004 Operational Plan as unlawful, and declined to remit the matter to the Minister because it was inappropriate late in the season to do so.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- openlaw-7f62084d_c9c5_4c56_bf51_37937ee439d1.pdf
- Parties
- Appellant: Squid Fishery Management Company Limited; First Respondent: Minister of Fisheries; Second Respondent: Chief Executive of Ministry of Fisheries
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 7 April 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; 2004 Operational Plan set aside; no remittal to the Minister
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Remedies, Operational Plan
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Squid Fishery Management Company Limited
Appellant
Minister of Fisheries
First Respondent
Chief Executive of Ministry of Fisheries
Second Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Validity of the 2004 Operational Plan issued by the Minister
- 2 Appropriate remedial response (quashing vs remittal) given seasonal timing
- 3 Costs allocation
Ratio Decidendi
The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the 2004 Operational Plan as unlawful, and declined to remit the matter to the Minister because it was inappropriate late in the season to do so.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; 2004 Operational Plan set aside; no remittal to the Minister
Orders
- Set aside the 2004 Operational Plan
- Record that appellant undertakes to abide a MALFiRM of 124 for the fishing season
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
SQUID FISHERY MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED V MINISTER OF FISHERIES And Anor CA CA39/04 7 April 2004IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA39/04BETWEEN SQUID FISHERY MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED Appellant AND MINISTER OF FISHERIES First Respondent AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF MINISTRY OF FISHERIES Second Respondent Hearing: 5 April 2004 Coram: Hammond J William Young J O'Regan J Appearances: B A Scott and G T Carter for Appellant U R Jagose and R E Schmidt for First and Second Respondents Judgment: 7 April 2004JUDGMENT (No 2) OF THE COURT[1] The appeal is allowed. There will be an Order in terms of para (b) of the prayer for relief setting aside the 2004 Operational Plan. The Crown accepts that this late in the season it is inappropriate to refer this matter back to the Minister for reconsideration. [2] Written reasons for this judgment will follow as soon as convenient. [3] We record that the appellant undertakes to abide a MALFiRM of 124 for this fishing season.[4] The appellant will have costs in the High Court on the 2B scale. It will have costs in this Court of $6,000, together with its reasonable disbursements, if necessary as fixed by the Registrar.Solicitors: Chapman Tripp, Wellington for Appellant Crown Law Office, Wellington for First and Second Respondent