Port Phillip Scallops Pty Ltd v Minister for Agriculture

Port Phillip Scallops Pty Ltd brought an action against the Minister for Agriculture, challenging several decisions and regulations made under the Fisheries Act 1995 (Vic). The key issues were whether the Minister had the power to revoke a certain order under section 64(1) of the Act, whether regulations setting a 'catch limit' for a licence could be made, and the validity of the Minister's decision to revoke the order and the making of the regulations. The court was also asked to consider whether the Minister's decision to revoke the order was made for an impermissible purpose, whether irrelevant considerations were taken into account, whether mandatory relevant considerations were not taken into account, whether the decision was legally unreasonable, and whether procedural fairness was afforded.

The court examined the relevant provisions of the Fisheries Act 1995 (Vic), the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic), and the Fisheries Regulations 2009 (Vic). It found that the Minister did have the power to revoke the order under section 64(1) of the Act, and that the power to make regulations setting a 'catch limit' for a licence existed. The court also determined that the Minister's decision to revoke the order was not made for an impermissible purpose, irrelevant considerations were not taken into account, mandatory relevant considerations were taken into account, the decision was not legally unreasonable, and procedural fairness was afforded. Consequently, the court held that the Minister's decision to revoke the order and the making of the regulations were both valid.

The court dismissed the challenge to the Minister's decision to revoke the order and the making of the regulations, finding no grounds for invalidating them. As a result, the plaintiff's action was unsuccessful. The court did not consider it necessary to address the challenge to the decision of the Minister's delegate to make an order under section 64A(1) of the Fisheries Act 1995 (Vic), as that decision had effectively lapsed.