Seafish has won a landmark victory in a case in the High Court that could have resulted in it losing up to 75% of its funding.
The case went to court last November after fish processor British Seafood issued proceedings. It claimed that Seafish was unlawfully receiving levy money from seafood importers.
In the judgment, handed down last week, Judge Hamblen ruled in Seafish's favour. Seafish, which is funded mainly through levy charged on seafood brought into the UK, said that it was delighted with the result.
"We have won on all the points that we have raised and will now be paid most of the outstanding levy and our legal costs", said chief executive of Seafish, John Rutherford.
British Seafood, which claims to be the largest independent seafood company in the UK, has vowed to fight on.
It has already been granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal by Judge Hamblen, and says it will lodge an appeal in due course. "We remain committed to challenging this unfair levy on our industry, which places us at a disadvantage to our European competitors," said group business director at British Seafood, Philip Pilgrim.
Responding to Pilgrim's comments, Seafish said it was confident British Seafood would not succeed on appeal, but would fight the case to the House of Lords if Judge Hamblen's judgment was overturned.
Seafish receives levies both on fish that is landed in the UK, and fish landed elsewhere and laterimported into the UK. Authority is given to it under the auspices of the Fisheries Act 1981.
In papers filed at court, British Seafood claimed that while levy was payable on landings, it was not payable on imported fish.
Judge Hamblen has ordered British Seafood to pay Seafish's expenses within 28 days. Although Defra was a co-defendant in the case, it has been ordered to pay its costs because it lost its arguments that the claim should have been struck out of court.
The case went to court last November after fish processor British Seafood issued proceedings. It claimed that Seafish was unlawfully receiving levy money from seafood importers.
In the judgment, handed down last week, Judge Hamblen ruled in Seafish's favour. Seafish, which is funded mainly through levy charged on seafood brought into the UK, said that it was delighted with the result.
"We have won on all the points that we have raised and will now be paid most of the outstanding levy and our legal costs", said chief executive of Seafish, John Rutherford.
British Seafood, which claims to be the largest independent seafood company in the UK, has vowed to fight on.
It has already been granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal by Judge Hamblen, and says it will lodge an appeal in due course. "We remain committed to challenging this unfair levy on our industry, which places us at a disadvantage to our European competitors," said group business director at British Seafood, Philip Pilgrim.
Responding to Pilgrim's comments, Seafish said it was confident British Seafood would not succeed on appeal, but would fight the case to the House of Lords if Judge Hamblen's judgment was overturned.
Seafish receives levies both on fish that is landed in the UK, and fish landed elsewhere and laterimported into the UK. Authority is given to it under the auspices of the Fisheries Act 1981.
In papers filed at court, British Seafood claimed that while levy was payable on landings, it was not payable on imported fish.
Judge Hamblen has ordered British Seafood to pay Seafish's expenses within 28 days. Although Defra was a co-defendant in the case, it has been ordered to pay its costs because it lost its arguments that the claim should have been struck out of court.
No comments yet