Reserved judgment — fishing in violation of a condition of a High Seas Permit — strict liability offending — “on behalf of” — liability of body corporate — liability for actions of agent — vicarious liability — corporate state of mind — authority to act — “taking” — "sale" — dumping of fish — repugnant to justice — Fisheries Act 1996, ss 2, 72, 113J, 191, 241, 244 & 245 — Evidence Act 2006, s 9 — Resource Management Act 1991, s 340 — Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, s 161 — Wine Act 2003, s 109 — Crimes Act 1961, s 105C — Ministry of Primary Industries v Anderson Fishing Company Limited [2021] NZDC 18123 — Amaltal Fishing v Ministry of Primary Industries [2021] NZHC 2275 — D’Esposito v Ministry of Primary Industries [2018] NZCA 9 — Ministry of Fisheries v B & G Fishing Limited Napier DC, CRN 3016510112-16 — Martin v Martin CA 82/77, 30 May 1979. The defendant company faced 14 charges of fishing in violation of a condition of a High Seas Permit. One of its fishing vessels had taken fish from an area where fishing was prohibited. The defendant's liability arose from the actions of its agent, who was the captain of the fishing vessel. The captain had been charged individually on the same 14 charges, and at the time of the current proceedings had already been convicted. The defendant argued that the captain's unlawful acts were not undertaken on its behalf. Alternatively, the defendant submitted that it had a defence to the charges, in that it had taken all reasonable precautions and had exercised due diligence. Given the wording of the Fisheries Act, the defendant could only argue its defence if the captain had complied with his statutory obligation to return the illegally-caught fish to the sea. The captain had not done this, so the defendant's arguments failed. Once the Court made this finding, the only avenue remaining open to the defendant was to persuade the Court that to block its defence would be repugnant to justice. The Court observed that the phrase "repugnant to justice" is "unusually emphatic" and rarely seen in statute, suggesting that it has a high threshold. Further, the Court found that the defendant could have taken more care to avoid committing unlawful fishing activities. It would not be "repugnant to justice" to block the defendant's defence. The defendant was found guilty and convicted on all charges. Judgment Date: 4 March 2022