Gannet Works (Pty) Ltd and Others v Middleton N.O and Another (14880/2022) [2022] ZAGPPHC 250 (12 April 2022)

Gannet Works (Pty) Ltd and Others v Middleton N.O and Another (14880/2022) [2022] ZAGPPHC 250 (12 April 2022)

The court found that the applicants satisfied the requirements for urgency due to the timing and economic impact of the notice. However, the substantive relief sought was dismissed. The court held that the definition of 'angling' in the Regulations, which forms part of the Act, clearly authorizes only recreational fishing by manually operating a rod, reel, and line. The use of bait-carrying drones and remote controlled boats falls outside the permitted method and is not authorized by recreational fishing permits endorsed for angling. The public notice did not alter the legal position but clarified existing statutory requirements. The court applied a purposive interpretation, considering...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 250
Parties
Applicant: Gannet Works (PTY) LTD; Applicant: IARC CC; Applicant: Unmanned SA (PTY) Ltd; Applicant: CDS Angling Supplies CC; Applicant: CEG Projects (PTY) Ltd; Respondent: Middleton, Sue N.O.; Respondent: Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 April 2022
Case Number
14880/2022
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Declaratory and Interdictory Relief on Urgent Roll
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of Senior Counsel.
Judges
Maumela
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Statutes, Marine Living Resources Act, Regulatory Notice, Recreational Fishing Permits, Judicial Deference
Administrative Law Environmental Law Interpretation of Statutes Marine Living Resources Act Regulatory Notice Recreational Fishing Permits Judicial Deference

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gannet Works (PTY) LTD

Applicant

IARC CC

Applicant

Unmanned SA (PTY) Ltd

Applicant

CDS Angling Supplies CC

Applicant

CEG Projects (PTY) Ltd

Applicant

Middleton, Sue N.O.

Respondent

Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Declaratory and Interdictory Relief on Urgent Roll

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the use of bait-carrying drones, bait-carrying remote controlled boats, and other remotely operated devices is prohibited under the Marine Living Resources Act and its Regulations.
  2. 2 Whether the public notice issued by the First Respondent on 24 February 2022 correctly reflects the law and should be withdrawn.
  3. 3 Whether the application meets the requirements for urgency.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants satisfied the requirements for urgency due to the timing and economic impact of the notice. However, the substantive relief sought was dismissed. The court held that the definition of 'angling' in the Regulations, which forms part of the Act, clearly authorizes only recreational fishing by manually operating a rod, reel, and line. The use of bait-carrying drones and remote controlled boats falls outside the permitted method and is not authorized by recreational fishing permits endorsed for angling. The public notice did not alter the legal position but clarified existing statutory requirements. The court applied a purposive interpretation, considering...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of Senior Counsel.

Orders

  • This application is dismissed.
  • The Applicants are ordered to pay the Respondents' costs, such costs to include the costs of Senior Counsel.