ANTONS TRAWLING COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOR V THE MINISTER OF FISHERIES HC WN CIV 2007-485-2199

ANTONS TRAWLING COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOR V THE MINISTER OF FISHERIES HC WN CIV 2007-485-2199

The Minister erred in law by setting TAC under s13(2)(b) without any assessment or estimate of current biomass or BMSY and without taking into account feasible best available information (a topographical survey); accordingly the TAC decision was quashed.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-59756703_cf2a_4eb4_a83e_660c15aebbfb.pdf
Parties
First Applicant: Antons Trawling Company Limited; Second Applicant: Esperance Fishing Co Limited; Second Applicant: Orneagan Developments Limited; First Respondent: The Minister of Fisheries; Second Respondent: The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Fisheries
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
22 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (administrative Law) / Judgment (high Court, Wellington, 22 February 2008)
Legal Topics
Total Allowable Catch (tac), Sustainability, Statutory Interpretation, Information Principles, Precautionary Approach, Adaptive Management
Administrative Law Fisheries Law Environmental Law Public International Law Total Allowable Catch (tac) Sustainability Statutory Interpretation Information Principles +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Antons Trawling Company Limited

First Applicant

Esperance Fishing Co Limited

Second Applicant

Orneagan Developments Limited

Second Applicant

The Minister of Fisheries

First Respondent

The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Fisheries

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (administrative Law) / Judgment (high Court, Wellington, 22 February 2008)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Minister complied with s13(2) Fisheries Act 1996 when setting TAC under s13(2)(b) without any assessment of current biomass or BMSY
  2. 2 Whether the Minister failed to act on the best available information contrary to s10 by disregarding a feasible topographical survey
  3. 3 Whether the Minister failed to consider or properly rely on sustainability/risk management measures (AMP, area/feature limits, CPUE thresholds) and s11 powers in setting TAC

Ratio Decidendi

The Minister erred in law by setting TAC under s13(2)(b) without any assessment or estimate of current biomass or BMSY and without taking into account feasible best available information (a topographical survey); accordingly the TAC decision was quashed.