United Fisheries Ltd v The Chief Executive of the Ministry Of

United Fisheries Limited filed an action against the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, challenging the validity of certain decisions made in relation to fishing permits. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia, where the respondents, with support from the fourth respondent, sought to have the proceeding struck out. Their primary argument was that the proceeding was barred by the validation provisions in section 329 of the Fisheries Act 1996. Additionally, they argued that there was a delay in bringing the proceeding.

The court was required to determine whether the validation provisions in section 329 of the 1996 Act applied to the actions of an allegedly undesignated official, as well as the interpretation of the phrase "purported decision" in the context of a review decision. The court also needed to consider whether the decision of 22 November 1993 was made "in respect of the issue, variation, refusal, revocation, or cancellation" of any fishing permit under section 63 of the Fisheries Act 1983, as required by section 329(2) of the 1996 Act.

Heron J held that the term "purported decision" in section 329 of the 1996 Act covered the acts of the official concerned, even if unauthorised, thus validating them. The court also found that the outcome of a review application under section 63(11) would fall within the statutory phrase, and therefore the decision itself on such an application should also fall within it. Consequently, there was no basis in law for challenging the application of the validation provisions of section 329(2) to the review decision of 22 November 1993. The court granted the application for strike out and indicated that it would not have upheld the ground based on delay.

The court's decision resulted in the proceeding being struck out, effectively dismissing United Fisheries Limited's action against the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. The court's ruling on the validation provisions and the interpretation of "purported decision" in the context of the review decision played a significant role in the outcome of the case.