The North Sunderland Harbour Order 1931 incorporates and constitutes North Sunderland Harbour Commissioners as a body corporate responsible for the management and maintenance of the harbour at North Sunderland, better known as Seahouses Harbour. The 1931 Order provides that North Sunderland Harbour Commissioners be body of nine Commissioners, six of whom are appointed by outside bodies, and three “fishermen’s Commissioners” elected by the registered fishermen of North Sunderland in elections to be held triennially in the month of the October.
 
In October 2022, Mr William Shiel, a fisherman eligible to vote and stand in elections of fishermen’s Commissioners, brought a claim for judicial review against appointing bodies for failures to make appointments, and against the Commissioners in respect of ongoing failures to hold elections. The claims against the appointing bodies were settled shortly after issue; following a renewed oral application, Mr Shiel has now been granted permission to proceed with his claim against the Commissioners.
 
The Commissioners accepted no elections of fishermen Commissioners had taken place since 2000, and that elections should have been held in October 2003, 2006, 2009, 2012, 2015, 2018 and 2021, but did not take place. The Commissioners argued that Mr Shiel’s claim was not brought within time and that they had no power to hold a further election until October 2024.
 
Mr Shiel’s case is that the Commissioners’ failure to hold the required election was a continuing breach of duty, meaning that questions of delay did not arise. He further drew the Court’s attention to difficulties he had experienced in obtaining information from the Commissioners as to how they were constituted, it having taken nearly two years from his first request to discover who the Commissioners were, with delays in the provision of other information.
 
Mr Shiel argued, relying on Att-Gen v. Great Eastern Railway Co, that if an election did not take place in the month of October in the year of a triennial anniversary of the 1931 Order, there was necessarily an implied power to hold an election outside that month to correct that omission. 
 
In granting permission for his claim for judicial review to proceed, HHJ Kelly further ordered that insofar as it may become necessary, Mr Shiel be granted an extension of time to bring his application. The matter now proceeds to a substantive hearing where Mr Shiel asks for an order that an election be held as soon as practicable.
 
Gregory Jones KC and Charles Holland act for the Claimant. They are instructed by Walton & Co Solicitors.