South Australian River Fishery Assoc & Warrick v State of South Australia No. Scciv-02-1381

The appeal brought by the State of South Australia against the South Australian River Fishery Association and Shane Warrick, its president, contests the declarations and orders made by a judge of this court following a hearing for judicial review. Shane Warrick and the Association sought judicial review of decisions made in 2002, claiming that certain regulations were invalid and sought various declarations and injunctions. The trial judge declared certain regulations invalid and ordered that the second plaintiff and other licence holders in the River Fishery remain entitled to quiet enjoyment of their respective reaches unless their licences are terminated for lawful reasons. The court also ordered that the question of damages for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment be tried as a separate issue. The State of South Australia appeals against the judge's declarations and orders.

The primary legal issues in this appeal revolve around the validity of certain regulations made in 2002 and the entitlement of the plaintiffs to declarations and orders regarding their fishing licences. The court must determine whether the trial judge correctly declared the regulations invalid and whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief they sought, including compensation for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. Additionally, the court must consider whether the plaintiffs' claim for compensation is based on an entitlement to compensation for the full value of their licence as a means of earning income, irrespective of the circumstances under which their ability to earn income ended.

The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the trial judge were set aside. The court held that the plaintiffs' claim for compensation was not adequately addressed and that the value of the licence as a means of producing income was either unrelated to, or only partly affected by, the events of 1997. The court substituted an order dismissing the plaintiffs’ action, concluding that the claim for compensation was not properly substantiated in the proceedings.