The Queen The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Another (Respondent) (arising from the Complaint of Nigel Mott Applicant)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE SIMON BROWN |
| Judgment Date | 28 July 2000 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2000] EWCA Civ J0728-18 |
| Date | 28 July 2000 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | C/2000/2320 |
[2000] EWCA Civ J0728-18
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
The Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London WC2A
Lord Justice Simon Brown
C/2000/2320
In the Matter of an Application for Judicial Review
MR Q NARDELL (instructed by Simon Jackson, 51 Bewsey Street, Warrington) appeared on behalf of the Applicant
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented
Friday 28th July 2000
: This is an application for permission to appeal against the order of Richards J, made in Cardiff on 15 May 2000, refusing to quash two by-laws made by the environment agency and confirmed by the respondent ministers. Both by-laws were made with a view essentially to improving and conserving salmon stocks. By-law 3 introduced a later end date for the annual close season for "fixed engine" fishing —in the applicant's case, putts or putchers (baskets for catching fish) —reducing the open season for this means of fishing to fewer than three months. By-law 5 requires that anyone fishing salmon by rod and line shall put back into the water any fish caught annually before 16th June.
The challenge to both by-laws was exclusively on vires grounds, the critical issue being whether the power to make them was to be found in the relevant parts of paragraph 6 of schedule 25 to the Water Resources Act 1991. Richards J delivered a reserved judgment which comprehensively sets out the whole case and the rival arguments, and I repeat none of it here.
Despite Mr Nardell's able arguments, both in his and Mr Gordon Bennett's joint skeleton argument and as developed before me this morning, I have reached the clear conclusion that the ten sub-paragraphs of reasons (in paragraph 34 of his judgment) given by Richards J for rejecting the challenge to by-law 3 are, taken cumulatively, irresistible. Accordingly, I refuse permission to appeal in that regard. As the judge himself recognised, however, the arguments for rejecting the challenge to the making of by-law 5 and, indeed, the reasons which he...
To continue reading
Request your trial