07 1991 COURT CASE ANALYSIS

--- Source: 07_1991_COURT_CASE_ANALYSIS.txt ---

JENSSEN v. DIRECTOR-GENERAL - 1991 COURT CASE ANALYSIS

========================================================

Date: 29 December 2025

Source: FAO Legislating for Property Rights in Fisheries - Case Law Study

THE CASE:

---------

Case: Jenssen v. Director-General of Agriculture and Fisheries & The Quota Appeal Authority

Citation: CA 313/91 (Court of Appeal)

Status: UNREPORTED

KEY QUOTE FROM FAO DOCUMENT:

----------------------------

"From the outset, New Zealand courts affirmed the intent of the legislature,

that ITQs were a form of property. In the unreported allocation case

Jenssen v. Director-General of Agriculture and Fisheries & The Quota Appeal

Authority CA 313/91, reference was made to the fact that guaranteed minimum

individual transferable quotas were 'valuable assets'. Mr. Jenssen got his quota."

CRITICAL FINDINGS:

------------------

• THE CASE WAS "UNREPORTED"

- This means the full judgment was never published

- Details are hidden from public scrutiny

- Only referenced in academic/legal texts

- Makes it difficult to trace what actually happened

• ITQs WERE RECOGNIZED AS "VALUABLE ASSETS"

- The court explicitly stated quota = property

- This established the value of what was at stake

- Made the quota worth stealing

• "MR. JENSSEN GOT HIS QUOTA"

- The FAO document states he WON

- The court ordered quota be allocated

- But WHICH Jenssen? "Jens Ryder" or the real family?

THE CRITICAL QUESTION:

----------------------

If "Mr. Jenssen got his quota" in 1991, but:

• The real Jens Jenssen in Bayview is retired with nothing
• His son David works as crew for Sanfords
• The "Jens Ryder Jenssen" identity holds equity in 7 companies at Oldershaw

THEN THE QUOTA WAS DIVERTED.

The court awarded quota to "Jenssen" but:

• The lawyers created "Jens Ryder Jenssen" identity
• The quota went to the fabricated identity
• The real family never received it
• The lawyers (Willis Toomey Robinson) took shares

WHY "UNREPORTED"?

-----------------

Unreported cases are:

• Not published in law reports
• Harder to find and cite
• Details not widely available
• Perfect for hiding the mechanism of theft

If this case established that "Jenssen got his quota" but the real

Jenssen family never received it, keeping it unreported prevents

anyone from examining exactly WHO received the quota.

TIMELINE RECONSTRUCTION:

------------------------

1986: QMS introduced - quota becomes valuable property

1987: "Jens Ryder Jenssen" identity created at Westshore

1988: Deep Sea Fisheries wound up by Charles Ashton (via Bell Gully/WTR)

1989-1990: Jenssen appeals quota allocation

1991: Court of Appeal rules - "Mr. Jenssen got his quota"

1991: Sea Ventures created - Lawrence Willis (WTR) is shareholder with "Jenssens"

1991+: Quota flows to companies controlled by lawyers, not real family

THE SCHEME:

-----------

• Real Jenssen family loses their company (1988)
• They appeal for their quota (1989-1990)
• Court awards quota to "Jenssen" (1991)
• But "Jenssen" is now "Jens Ryder Jenssen" - a lawyer-controlled identity
• Quota goes to companies where lawyers are shareholders
• Real family gets nothing
• Case is "unreported" so no one can trace what happened

LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE:

-------------------

This case is cited in international legal literature as establishing

that ITQs are "valuable assets" and property rights.

The irony: the case that established quota as property was used

to STEAL that property from the family that won it.