Fish & Fish Ltd v Sea Shepherd UK and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 March 2015 |
| Date | 04 March 2015 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
Supreme Court
Before Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, Lord Sumption and Lord Toulson
A judge was entitled to conclude that an English conservation charity's acceptance of campaign funds, on behalf of its overseas parent organisation, amounted only to a minimal involvement in the facilitation of an attack on a fishing boat as part of a campaign by its parent organisation to prevent illegal fishing. Consequently, the English charity was not liable in tort by reason of common design for any loss and damage suffered by the boat owners.
The Supreme Court so held (Lord Mance and Lord Sumption dissenting) in allowing an appeal by the first defendant, Sea Shepherd UK (Sea Shepherd), against the decision of the Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice McCombe and Lord Justice Beatson)WLR ([2013] 1 WLR 3700) overtu rning the decision of Mr Justice HamblenUNK ([2012] 2 Lloyd's Rep 409), on a preliminary issue, that Sea Shepherd, was not liable as a joint tortfeasor with the second and third defendants, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (the society), Sea Shepherd's parent organisation, and Mr Paul Watson, in respect of an attack carried out on a vessel belonging to the claimant, Fish &Fish Ltd, by a vessel under the command of Mr Watson, as part of a campaign organised by the society aimed at preventing illegal fishing of Atlantic bluefin tuna. Mr John Russell, QC, for Sea Shepherd; Mr Michael Dav ey, QC, for the claimant. The society and Mr Watson did not appear and were not represented.
LORD TOULSON said that Sea Shepherd was an English company. The other defendants had no presence in the UK. Sea Shepherd was, therefore, the anchor defendant for the purpose of the English court having jurisdiction to entertain the action.
The claimant alleged that Sea Shepherd was party to a common design with the other defendants to carry out the operation and that that was to involve violent intervention of the kind which allegedly occurred. It relied particularly on a mailshot soliciting payments to Sea Shepherd in support of the operation. The mailshot stated "We intend to seize, cut, confiscate and destroy every illegal tuna fish net we find".
The judge accepted that Sea Shepherd approved of the campaign and was aware that it envisaged the possibility of violent intervention against property, but he added that that was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial