LEIAH Pty Ltd (ACN 059 072 230) v The State of Tasmania

[2015] HCASL 53

LEIAH PTY LTD (ACN 059 072 230)

v

THE STATE OF TASMANIA

[2015] HCASL 53
H3/2014

1. The applicant was the lessee and bailee of a boat that was forfeited to the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries ("the Minister") pursuant to s 58 of the (now repealed) Fisheries Act 1959 (Tas) ("the Act").  Section 59(2) of the Act provided that a boat forfeited under the Act is deemed to be condemned unless "the owner" gives notice to the Minister disputing the forfeiture, "whereupon proceedings shall be taken against the owner for the forfeiture and condemnation of the boat". 

2. On 7 February 1995, the applicant gave notice to the Minister under s 59(2) of the Act, but no proceedings for forfeiture and condemnation were taken.  On 27 February 1995, the applicant commenced proceedings against the respondent claiming damages for unlawful detention of the boat and a declaration that it was entitled to possession of the boat.  For reasons that are unexplained, those proceedings were not heard until 2012. 

3. On 8 March 2013, the Supreme Court of Tasmania dismissed the applicant's claim.  Wood J held that the applicant was not "the owner" of the boat and so could not give a valid notice under s 59(2) of the Act.  Her Honour also held that, in any event, the convictions of crew members for illegal fishing would have resulted in condemnation of the boat under s 61(1) of the Act.

4. On 18 June 2014, the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania dismissed the applicant's appeal.  Blow CJ (with whom Tennent and Pearce JJ agreed) held that the word "owner" in s 59(2) of the Act did not include a lessee, bailee or charterer by demise of the boat and upheld the finding as to the operation of s 61(1) of the Act.

5. The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court.  The application concerns the interpretation of provisions of an Act that is no longer in force.  Moreover, no reason is shown to doubt to correctness of the conclusions of the courts below.  The interests of justice do not warrant the grant of special leave to appeal.  Special leave is refused.

6. Pursuant to r 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application, with costs.

S.M. Kiefel
9 April 2015 P.A. Keane