Penmayn Ltd v Marine Management Organisation

Decision given on: 16 March 2026 The Appeal is allowed The Appeal

1. By notice dated 25 September 2025 the Appellant (“A”) appeals against the Notice of Suspension of Marine Licence dated 29 August 2025 served by the Respondent (“R”) in relation to Marine Licence L/2023/00169/1. The grounds of appeal alleged procedural failings on the part of R, a failure to consider relevant evidence, the disproportionate exercise of the power to t suspend a Marine Licence, bias and apparent predetermination, inconsistent treatment of A compared to other licence holders, conflict with the objectives of Government policy and the impact on A’s operations.

2. A initially sought the following relief: (a) Withdrawal of the Respondent’s Suspension Notice dated 29 August 2025; (b) Reinstatement of the marine licence with immediate effect; (c) Extension or resetting of the licence to preserve the operational period to account for lost time; (d) Recovery of court and legal costs; (e) Any further relief the Tribunal deems appropriate given the negative media coverage and investor impact. R’s Response to the Appeal

3. The Respondent in its response to the appeal dated 11 November 2025 stated that, by reason of its subsequent variation of the Marine Licence to include an additional condition, it consented to the withdrawal of the Suspension Notice by the Tribunal under Regulation 5(2) of the Marine Licensing (Notice Appeals) Regulations 2011 (“the Regulations”). The effect of that withdrawal would be that the Marine Licence is effectively reinstated with immediate effect. The Respondent therefore consents to the relief sought by the Appellant as set out in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) above. The Case Management Directions

4. Four sets of Case Management Directions were made on 30 September 2025, 14 October 2025, 2 February 2026 and 26 February 2026. The Directions of 26 February 2026 fixed the date of 6 March 2026 for the hearing of the appeal, but allowed the Parties to extend the dates for exchange of evidence and the filing of the bundle for the hearing by up to 14 days. The Parties agreed such an extension which, given the timetable set by the Directions, made it impractical for the full hearing to take place on 6 March 2026 and, by application dated 22 February 2026 A sought the vacation of the hearing date with a short adjournment to allow the orderly preparation of the hearing papers and efficient use of the Tribunal’s time.

5. I accepted that that the revised preparation timetable agreed between the parties left insufficient time for the full hearing to take place on 6 March 2026 in a way which is fair to the parties. However, I considered that there was a need for further case management to ensure that it is disposed of in accordance with the Overriding Objective and the Tribunal with 6 March 2026 reserved for a Case Management Conference should it be necessary. In the light of the content of R’s response to the appeal, I directed that the Appellant should: () provide a statement setting out the issues which it is asking the Tribunal to resolve at a full hearing (other than costs) given that the Respondent had consented to the withdrawal of the Suspension Notice with immediate effect; and () notify the Tribunal whether, pursuant to Rule 32(1)(a), it consents to the issue of costs being dealt with in writing and without a hearing. A’s Response to the Directions of 26 February 2026

6. On 3 March 2026 A responded to the Directions noting R’s confirmation that it does not oppose the withdrawal of the Notice of Suspension and seeking formal withdrawal of the Notice of Suspension by the Tribunal. A stated that it did not seek any further substantive determination in relation to the Notice of Suspension other than its withdrawal and that it was not pursuing an application for costs; agreeing that each party should bear in its own costs. A invited the Tribunal to withdraw the Notice of Suspension and make no order as to costs. In the light of this response, I directed that the Case Management Conference be vacated. Decision

7. Under Regulation 5(2) of the Marine Licensing (Notices of Appeals) Regulations 2011 the Tribunal may: (a) Withdraw a suspension notice or any requirement contained in it; (b) Confirm the suspension notice or any requirement contained in it; (c) Vary the suspension notice or any requirement contained in it; (d) Take such steps as the licensing authority or enforcement authority (as appropriate) could take in relation to the act or omission giving rise to the suspension notice; or (e) Remit the decision whether to confirm the suspension notice, or any matter relating to that decision, to the licensing authority or enforcement authority (as appropriate). The Tribunal has no power under Regulation 5(2) to vary the terms of the Marine Licence itself or to take steps other than those set out in Regulation 5(2).

8. The Parties are in agreement that the Tribunal should withdraw the Notice of Suspension of Marine Licence dated 29 August 2025 and having regard to the contents of R’s response to the appeal and A’s response of 3 March 2026 to my Directions, I am satisfied that it is appropriate for the Tribunal to do so. There being no other issues requiring determination by the Tribunal, I am also satisfied that, in accordance with Rule 32 of the Tribunal Rules, I can do so without the need for a hearing. I thank the parties for their cooperation in assisting the Tribunal.

9. I therefore withdraw the Notice of Suspension dated 29 August 2025 with immediate effect. Judge Simon Bird KC 6 March 2026