Judgment: 2022-11-11 · Court archive

High Court strikes out Michael Hoey’s claims against Waterways Ireland

The court found the removal of a sunken, unpermitted barge was lawful and rejected claims over water abstractions and navigation duties before striking out the action in its entirety.

High Court · [2022] IEHC 628

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Michael Hoey
  • Waterways Ireland (Defendant)
What

The court found the removal of a sunken, unpermitted barge was lawful and rejected claims over water abstractions and navigation duties before striking out the action in its entirety.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Barrow Navigation
  • Athy
  • Srowland
  • Edenderry
  • Kildare Town
  • New Ross
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

In a judgment delivered on 11 November 2022, Ms Justice Emily Egan found that Waterways Ireland acted within its statutory authority when it removed and stored barge 43M in October 2011. The vessel had been sunk, was resting on the canal bed and occupied at least a third of the available channel, the court found. It also had no mooring permit and was not in good working order. Waterways Ireland had notified Hoey in May 2011 that the barge should be removed, giving him five days to act before it did so.

The High Court has struck out Michael Hoey’s action against Waterways Ireland in its entirety, rejecting claims arising from the removal of his barge and alleged failures to protect water levels on the Barrow Navigation.

In a judgment delivered on 11 November 2022, Ms Justice Emily Egan found that Waterways Ireland acted within its statutory authority when it removed and stored barge 43M in October 2011. The vessel had been sunk, was resting on the canal bed and occupied at least a third of the available channel, the court found. It also had no mooring permit and was not in good working order. Waterways Ireland had notified Hoey in May 2011 that the barge should be removed, giving him five days to act before it did so.

The judge held that the applicable canal bye-laws authorised removal because the boat had sunk and, separately, because it had been moored for more than five days without a permit. She found no unlawfulness in its removal to a storage facility in New Ross and said the bye-laws provided no basis for damages for removal or storage carried out in accordance with them. The judgment records that storage had cost Waterways Ireland about €3,000 a year; it did not determine a final amount owed.

Hoey also argued that two interference notices he issued in 2002 were valid objections to a proposed water abstraction from the River Barrow at Srowland, near Athy. The court found the notices were not issued by a navigation authority and were legally invalid. It also found no liability on Waterways Ireland for failing to act on them, noting that any primary obligation to respond would rest with Kildare County Council.

The wider claims concerned alleged water loss linked to projects including Edenderry power station, the Kildare town bypass, the Kildare Water Strategy and the Srowland abstraction. The judge said those activities were carried out by other bodies, and Hoey had not established that Waterways Ireland caused the alleged loss or breached a duty. She also cited lack of cogent evidence linking projects to navigation problems, limitation issues, and Hoey’s lack of standing to recover losses claimed for Canalways Ireland Limited, which was dissolved in 2016.

The court rejected Hoey’s argument that a bye-law limiting boats to a 1.2-metre draft required Waterways Ireland to maintain canal depth at 1.5 metres. It said the rule set a maximum vessel draft, not a minimum water depth the authority had to maintain. The judgment records that the action was struck out in full; it does not state a separate costs order.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review