Scampi
fishermen prejudiced by bureaucratic bungling in the 1990s lost heavily when
turning down government offers of ex
gratia compensation. Compensation
offers lapsed during attempts to negotiate a higher offer, subsequent
litigation failed and they were required to compensate government for part of
its one million dollar legal costs.
A lack of co-ordination and consistency
between Fisheries regional offices in the early 1990s saw different regimes
around the country governing scampi fishing.
This extended to some regions issuing permits in respect of waters under
the jurisdiction of other regional offices.
With this general confusion, some applications for scampi fishing permits
were not processed before an October 1990 moratorium came into effect. Some fishers were left without a permit when
scampi came under the quota management system.
They cried foul, demanding compensation.
Complaints to a parliamentary select
committee led to ex gratia offers of
compensation. The High Court was to
learn some scampi fishers made a tactical decision to turn down the offers in
the hope of getting a better deal: Pranfield Holdings turned down $900,000,
United Fisheries and Mr Noel McLellan turned down $400,000 each. It was not until September 2008 that
government decided offers would not be increased. Attempts to get judicial review of this
decision failed, leaving the three fishers liable to contribute towards
government’s legal costs. Mr McLelland was ordered to pay $16,100, with
Pranfield Holdings and United Fisheries jointly liable to pay $11,700.
McLellan
v. Attorney General – High Court (27.04.16)
16.067