1990s A Mr. Radford owned the fishing vessel known as the MFV Morgensonne (" the vessel ") which was 23.77 metres in length.
28.10.1998 Following the increasing capacity for scallop fishing, the plaintiff and his then two partners applied for a sea fishing boat licence (" SFB licence ") for the vessel, recording an engine size of 216.3 kilowatts, which later transpired to be incorrect.
07.01.1999 The plaintiff and his two partners became the owner of the vessel by way of bills of sale.
15.04.1999 A SFB licence issued for the period 29.03.1999 to 30.06.2000 to the plaintiff and his partners for the vessel.
04.05.1999 A letter was sent to the plaintiff from the Registry of Shipping with the three bills of sale duly endorsed along with an application form to register the vessel as a fishing vessel. The form was completed and sent back on the 5th May, 1999.
15.11.1999 The Registrar of Shipping (" the Registrar ") wrote to the plaintiff informing him that there was a discrepancy in the engine size recorded on his application and the information that was already contained on the register. The Registrar arranged for a survey of the vessel, which was carried out on the 4th April, 2000.
06.04.2000 Following the survey, the surveyor wrote to the plaintiff and his partners about the discrepancy. The plaintiff then discovered that Mr. Radford had put a new engine into the vessel in 1990.
04.05.2000 The Registrar advised the plaintiff that he had amended the register to show the correct details of the engine, endorsed the application to register the vessel and had forwarded it to the Registrar General of Fishing Boats. The plaintiff was also advised to contact the licensing section of the first named defendant's department (" Department ") to have the engine capacity amended in the licence due to the discrepancy arising.
11.05.2000 The application form, showing an engine power of 216.43 kilowatts but 500 horsepower, which equated to 373 kilowatts (the correct engine power), was forwarded by the Registrar to the Registrar General of Fishing Boats.
23.05.2000 An internal Department note issued in respect of the error.
25.05.2000 A handwritten internal Department note issued indicating that "an amended licence and registration should issue in this case."
26.05.2000 A SFB licence was issued to the plaintiff and his partners for the vessel which had the correct engine size details.
22.06.2000 An identical SFB licence was issued except that it referred to the old incorrect engine size.
10.07.2000 The Registrar issued a certificate of registration of the vessel as an Irish Fishing Boat with the incorrect engine details.
July 2000 The plaintiff and his partners stopped fishing. The plaintiff said that he and his partners did not draw down a grant approved to fund the purchase of safety equipment prior to the 30.06.2000 deadline.
09.09.2000 Another certificate of registration was issued, also with the same incorrect engine details.
2000 - 2002 It was less profitable for boats like the vessel to fish for scallops because of their limited range. Contributing to this was the depletion of resources and the dramatic increase in the number of vessels fishing for scallops.
Early 2001 The plaintiff was named by fish factories in applications for a dumping at sea permit under the Dumping at Sea Act 1996.
March 2001 The plaintiff acquired the shares of his partners in the vessel and became the sole owner.
23.11.2001 Meeting between the Minister of State at the Department of the Marine, Department officials, the plaintiff and one of the processors, discussing the dumping at sea project. It noted, inter alia , that the location of a dumpsite had not yet been determined.
17.12.2001 The plaintiff wrote to the Coastal Zone Management Division of the Department of the Marine and, after referring to the hard time for the scallop fishing sector, said "[t] he result is that a boat of this size [i.e. the vessel ] is no longer viable " and enclosed a proposal to use the vessel for a dumping at sea project.
25.06.2002 A SFB licence was issued to the plaintiff and his partners which referred to the incorrect engine capacity.
15.07.2002 Coastal Zone Management Division of the Department wrote to the plaintiff notifying him that a location for the dumping had been agreed.
14.08.2002 A SFB licence was issued to the plaintiff and his partners which referred to the correct engine capacity.
12.11.2002 Coastal Zone Management Division wrote to the plaintiff informing him that legal advice had been sought from the Attorney General's Office due to the disparity between the Dumping at Sea Act 1996 and EU legislation which indicated that " the disposal of fish waste at sea may not be allowed."
20.11.2002 The plaintiff wrote to the Department requesting a correct certificate of registration.
2002 The vessel had been fitted out for dumping at sea.
January 2003 Mr. Shine from Coastal Management Division gave evidence that he phoned the plaintiff telling him that he would not be getting a permit to dump at sea. The plaintiff claimed that he never received this phone call.
21.01.2003 Mr. Shine emailed his boss in the Department stating that he had " advised both K. Kielthy ... that dumping at sea is no longer allowed and given them the basic details of new EU Regs ."
2002 - 2003 The plaintiff was in receipt of invalidity pension. He remains in receipt of a social welfare type payment.
23.12.2003 A SFB licence was issued to the plaintiff with the correct engine capacity.
12.10.2004 The plaintiff claimed that he wrote a letter to Mr. Ryan of the Department requesting an update in relation to the application for dumping at sea. Mr. Ryan gave evidence that he never received this letter.
03.11.2004 Dumping at Sea (Amendment) Act 2004 was enacted. It specifically amended the 1996 Act to remove the possibility of authorising dumping at sea.
18.05.2005 SI 245 of 2005 was signed into force, providing that the Minister could restrict through individual allocation to an Irish sea fishing boat the number of days that such boat could fish for scallops.
20.06.2005 The plaintiff wrote to the Department in relation to the decommissioning scheme (see [18.10.2005]) explaining: "as you will be aware the impact of larger vessels being introduced in the scallop fleet has had the effect of diminishing local scallop beds on which [the vessel] was clearly dependent … a special case could be made to include [the vessel] in [the decommissioning scheme] as her lack of 75 fishing days per year in the last two years is a direct result of the delay in processing the dump at sea applications".
21.06.2005 The plaintiff explained in a letter to another official, also in relation to a special case being made in relation to the decommissioning scheme, that he was unable to find a buyer for the vessel. No reference was made by the plaintiff in 2005 to the main thrust of his claim in these proceedings (the incorrect registration details for the engine in the vessel).
30.06.2005 Two SFB licences were issued to the plaintiff, one with the correct engine capacity and the other with the incorrect engine capacity.
June/
July 2005 The plaintiff applied to the Department to carry out a review of his entitlement to an authorisation to fish for scallops.
08.07.2005 The Register of Fishing Boats for the vessel was corrected. A certificate of registration was issued in the names of the plaintiff and one of his previous partners.
28.07.2005 SI 464 of 2005 was introduced, revoking previous statutory instruments. The Regulations introduced a licencing regime for the scallop fishing industry and gave the Minister a discretion as to whether to issue an authorisation to a particular vessel. In January 2006 a policy directive (No. 1/2006) was issued which gave effect to a recommendation that the scallop fleet be ring-fenced to those vessels that had fished for at least 50 days in the two and a half years prior to the 30th June, 2005.
21.09.2005 The plaintiff, having contacted the Ombudsman regarding his dumping at sea permit, was informed that the Department had advised that dumping at sea was no longer permissible.
14.10.2005 The plaintiff again wrote to the Department seeking to be considered a ‘hardship' case in relation to the decommissioning scheme, citing the delay in the dumping at sea project as the reason he did not have a track record under the scheme.
18.10.2005 The plaintiff applied for compensation to decommission the vessel under "the scheme to permanently withdraw capacity from demersal and shell fish sectors of the Irish Fishing Fleet ". ("decommissioning scheme "). This decommissioning scheme, which was partly financed by the European Union, included a requirement that the applicant vessel had to have a minimum fishing activity of 75 days in each of two periods of 12 months from 01.10.2003 to 01.10.2005 according to Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 2792/1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector.
16.11.2005 BIM wrote to the plaintiff stating that the initial assessment of his application indicated that he has not achieved the requisite number of days for inclusion in the decommissioning scheme. However, BIM agreed to review the logbook data again.
December 2005
- July 2006 The vessel was used to fish for scallops for 51 days without an authorisation to do so.
09.06.2006 A SFB licence was issued to the plaintiff which recorded the incorrect engine capacity.
July 2006 The plaintiff's application for an authorisation to fish for scallops was refused as he had not achieved the requisite number of days. He stopped fishing and kept the vessel laid-up in Kilmore Quay Harbour.
01.09.2006 The plaintiff's application for compensation under the decommissioning scheme was refused.
26.09.2006 The plaintiff appealed the refusal of his application under the decommissioning scheme.
08.11.2006 The plaintiff appealed the refusal to grant an authorisation to fish for scallops.
20.03.2007 The Department wrote to the plaintiff informing him that his appeal from the refusal to grant an authorisation to fish for scallops had been unsuccessful.
20.06.2007 A SFB licence was issued to the plaintiff which recorded the correct engine capacity.
05.09.2007 The appeal from the refusal decision to include the plaintiff in the decommissioning scheme was successful and the plaintiff was awarded €250,000 in respect of which leave for judicial review was subsequently granted.
26.12.2007 The plaintiff wrote to the defendants' law officer requesting him to confirm that the disposal of the vessel would not compromise his position in respect of his application for the decommissioning grant. He did not receive a positive response to this letter.
23.04.2008 A SFB licence was issued to the plaintiff with the correct engine capacity recorded.
29.07.2008 These proceedings were issued.
07.11.2008 Proceedings bearing the record number 2008/9277 P were issued which referred to the refusal to grant a fishing authorisation in 2005 to the plaintiff.
12.03.2009 Hanna J., in an ex tempore judgment with record number 2008/236 JR, found that the appeals officer had acted ultra vires but refused to quash the order on the grounds inter alia of delay.
22.04.2009 Notice of Appeal by the Department to the Supreme Court.
19.01.2010 The vessel was removed from the fishing register and the plaintiff received something in the region of €20,000-€25,000 for his two thirds of the tonnage capacity transferred to other boat owners.
26.01.2010 A notice of discontinuance was filed in the proceedings 2008/9277 P.
14.12.2011 The statement of claim herein was delivered.
27.05.2014 The Supreme Court allowed the appeal from the order of Hanna J. Clarke J. stated in the ex tempore judgment that it was incorrect to determine that certiorari should not be ordered by reason of " conduct and delay identified in [the] judgment ".
15.05.2015 The defence herein was delivered.
11.04.2016 The plaintiff ceased to have a solicitor on record.
26.01.2017 New solicitors came on record for the plaintiff.
06.03.2017 These proceedings were set down for trial.
