No requirement to hold oral hearing of appeal of grant of amended fish farm licence

Application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of a decision of the Acquacultural Licenses Appeals Board (“the Board”) dated 31st October, 2012 - Board confirmed an earlier decision of the Minister for Agriculture to grant a temporary licence for the amendment of operating procedures to the notice party, Silver King Seafoods Ltd. (“Silver King”) in respect of the latter’s salmon farming site at Deenish Island, Ballinskelligs Bay, Co. Kerry - the second judgment on this application for leave - first judgment, delivered on 8th April, 2014 ([2014] IEHC 248), held that the applicant had the requisite locus standi to pursue this application for judicial review - whether the applicant could demonstrate the existence of substantial grounds within the meaning of the statutory test contained in s. 73(2)(b) of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1997 (“the 1997 Act”) for contending that “the decision or determination is invalid or ought to be quashed” in respect of the substantive grounds on which it seeks this relief - Minister granted amended licence to permit new stocking arrangements at the farm on 22nd March, 2011 - this was appealed by a number of objectors (including the Group) to the Board - principal objection relates to the manner in which the Group’s application for an oral hearing was rejected by the Board and the failure to give reasons for this refusal - nature of the discretion conferred on the Board regarding the holding of an oral hearing – whether failure to give reasons in respect of the decision not to hold an oral hearing give rise to substantial grounds for contending that the decision is invalid or ought to be quashed – Board ought to have given written reasons for its failure to hold an oral hearing – but no conflict of fact which is central to the outcome of the licensing process has been identified - in these circumstances, the Board was entitled to conclude that no oral hearing was necessary - cannot be said that the failure to give reasons in respect of the decision not to hold an oral hearing is likely to render the substantive decision invalid or liable to be quashed in circumstances where there was no underlying obligation to hold such a hearing – applicant had not shown the existence of substantial grounds by which the validity of that licence could be successfully challenged - leave refused.