Fishermen are refused injunctions allowing them to fish pending determination of judicial review

Injunctions - methodology by which figures are arrived at which represent fish catch in respect of the species Nephrops - whether fishermen entitled to injunctions allowing them to keep fishing until adjudication of the substantive action - sea area in question is known as Functional Area 16 - Minister closed this area in respect of fishing for Nephrops Norvegicus for September, October and November 2017 - method of calculating fish catch - fishermen underreporting in their fishing logs - had to employ other methodology in order to reach a more accurate estimate as to the actual amount of Nephrops being fished in the relevant area - relevant statutory provisions - relevant chronology - impact of situation on the fishermen's businesses - methodology used - Minister should not have relied upon the information furnished by the Authority in deciding to close the fishing - right to notice of intended changes to methodology - right to make representations in relation to them - mootness - test to be applied in respect of an interlocutory injunction in judicial review proceedings - strength of the fishermen's case - whether the appropriate test one of an arguable case or a strong case - reliefs sought in the present case are best characterised as falling within the concept of mandatory relief because it is sought to compel the State authorities to carry out their legal obligations - threshold of a "strong case" is a case likely to succeed at trial - fishermen failed to establish a strong case - where does the greatest risk of injustice lie - whether damages would be an adequate remedy - balance of convenience - reference to the ECJ - more injustice would be done to the State if the injunctions were granted - injunctions refused.