Fisheries in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd (No. 5)
    • House of Lords
    • 28 n 1999

    The Solicitor General laid great stress on the point made by the European Court that one of the factors which could be taken into account in the assessment of seriousness was whether or not the breach was excusable. Much importance was attached by him to the legal advice which had been taken and received. The critical issue related to the interaction between these articles and the Common Fisheries Policy.

  • R Nigel Mott v The Environment Agency David Merrett (Interested Party)
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 13 a 2015

    The final sentence quoted above was explained as meaning that the number of fish allowed per licence was set as being approximately the 10 year average catch of the least productive of all the fisheries licensed. The practical result for the claimant is that his fishery of 650 putchers is given the same catch allocation as the smallest and least effective of the other putcher fisheries, which may operate 50 baskets or less.

  • Bloomsbury International Ltd & Others v Sea Fish Industry Authority & Anothers
    • Supreme Court
    • 15 a 2011

    In matters of statutory construction, the statutory purpose and the general scheme by which it is to be put into effect are of central importance. They represent the context in which individual words are to be understood.

  • Isle of Anglesey and Others v The Welsh Ministers and Others
    • Court of Appeal
    • 20 a 2009

    Where an Act has been interpreted in a particular way without dissent over a long period, those interested should be able to continue to order their affairs on that basis without risk of it being upset by a novel approach. That applies particularly in a relatively esoteric area of the law such as the present, in relation to which cases may rarely come before the courts, and the established practice is the only guide for operators and their advisers.

  • R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd (No 2)
    • House of Lords
    • 11 n 1990

    In the circumstances I believe that the most logical course in seeking a decision least likely to occasion injustice is to make the best prediction we can of the final outcome and to give to that prediction decisive weight in resolving the interlocutory issue.

    It follows that, as a general rule, in cases of this kind involving the public interest, the problem cannot be solved at the first stage, and it will be necessary for the court to proceed to the second stage, concerned with the balance of convenience.

    In this context, particular stress should be placed upon the importance of upholding the law of the land, in the public interest, bearing in mind the need for stability in our society, and the duty placed upon certain authorities to enforce the law in the public interest. This is of itself an important factor to be weighed in the balance when assessing the balance of convenience.

See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results