The Court of Appeal has thrown out a €10,000 fine imposed on Mare Blu Tuna Farm Ltd, after finding that the fisheries authorities fell short on both evidence and procedure.

On Thursday, the court ruled that the Director General of Fisheries and Aquaculture had failed to back up the allegations properly, issued a notice that was not adequately reasoned, and did not clearly explain how the penalty had been worked out.

Dispute over tuna counts

In 2024, the Director General of Fisheries and Aquaculture informed Mare Blu Tuna Farm Ltd that inspections of three tuna transfer operations had flagged discrepancies in fish counts.

The quantity of tuna contained in the cages allegedly exceeded the five per cent tolerance margin permitted by law.

Following a review on 20 August 2024, the company was fined €10,000.

Tribunal finds serious procedural failings

In October 2025, the Administrative Review Tribunal tore up the sanction, finding that the enforcement notice did not hold up under legal scrutiny. It said the notice failed to set out a proper "summary of facts", leaving the company in the dark about what it was actually being accused of.

The tribunal also took aim at the strength of the evidence, saying that the case hinged on underwater video footage of poor quality.

The official responsible for the counts had conceded that visibility conditions and fish movement can easily throw off accuracy, and admitted the recordings were far from ideal.

Despite the importance of those recordings, the videos themselves were never exhibited before the tribunal.

The tribunal also said the authorities had provided no coherent explanation for how the €10,000 penalty had been calculated.

Appeal arguments rejected

On appeal, the Director General argued that the law only required a broad "summary" of the facts, and that Mare Blu, as an experienced operator, should have been able to piece together the allegations from earlier correspondence.

But the Court of Appeal rejected those arguments.

Judge Lawrence Mintoff stressed that administrative enforcement proceedings must comply with the principles of natural justice.

The court said the authorities could not "hide behind" the word summary to skimp on essential detail. It also rejected the idea that the company's industry experience could make up for a deficient notice.

"The argument that the company should have understood the allegations because of its experience in the sector does not hold," the court observed.

On the evidence, the court described the underwater footage as "sine qua non" and a "cardinal" piece of the case, since it underpinned the fish counts that triggered the proceedings.

While acknowledging that administrative proceedings do not require proof beyond reasonable doubt, the court emphasised that authorities are still expected to come up with the best available evidence.

The court also upheld the tribunal's criticism of how the fine had been calculated, finding it unexplained and unconvincing.

The €10,000 penalty was therefore wiped out in full, with the court ordering the Director General to pick up 90% of the appeal costs, leaving Mare Blu responsible for the remaining 10%.