FISHERMAN Nigel Bray today lost his High Court challenge to regulations which limit his business because his boat is deemed too long.

In a case with implications for fishermen around the country, his lawyers argued at an earlier hearing that the Sussex Sea Fisheries Committee had no power to impose restrictions based on boat length.

But Mr Justice Scott Baker today refused an application for judicial review brought by Mr Bray, 41, of Hartfield Road, Seaford, who fell foul of a new bye-law introduced by the committee and approved by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) in September 1997.

Mr Bray, a fisherman with 25 years experience, took possession of the 23.4-metre Our Diana the day after Bye-law No 3 took effect, prohibiting vessels over 14 metres from fishing within the inshore six-mile limit.

The vessel would have been exempt from the regulation if it had been in use in local waters before the bye-law was introduced, or if it had been of no greater overall length and horsepower than the vessel it replaced.

Our Diana was a replacement for Mr Bray's two earlier boats Arie Dirk and Zuiderzee, used for trawling for flat fish and cod.

Michael Davey, appearing for Mr Bray, had told the judge that Our Diana did not qualify for exemption.

He submitted that the bye-law was void because the committee could only restrict or prohibit "methods of fishing for sea fish" or "the use of any instrument of fishing" - not the length of an actual fishing boat.

An "instrument" specifically meant a device - such as nets, pots, hook or line, he said.

There was also a procedural flaw because the bye-law had not been properly advertised in the newspapers before its introduction, he claimed.

Mr Bray launched his High Court action to challenge the confirmation by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of the bye-law made by the committee on April 18, 1996.

But in his ruling today, Mr Justice Scott Baker said it seemed to him that "local fisheries committees are not only well qualified, but also well trusted to make any necessary bye-laws for the regulation of sea fisheries".

In conclusion he said the bye-law was lawful and there were "no irregularities" in the procedure confirming it.

He refused Mr Bray leave to appeal against today's decision.

Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.