The High Court has refused Gary Keville Transport Ltd’s application for an interlocutory injunction that would have prevented MSC from directing depots not to let the haulage company deliver or collect MSC containers.
Mr Justice Dignam found a fair question to be tried over whether MSC’s decision was wrongful in the circumstances, including its abrupt imposition and the effect on GKT’s booked work. But he concluded that the overall balance of justice did not favour an injunction. The ruling does not decide the underlying claims at trial.
GKT, which has no contract with MSC, transports containerised goods for its own customers. The dispute followed two incidents in which GKT held MSC containers at its depot while seeking payment of additional charges. In March 2020, after a depot refused an empty container because it was full, the parties disagreed over costs arising from the redirection. MSC ultimately paid €2,084.85, according to its affidavit, and the container was returned.
In July 2021, GKT’s customer had not passed on MSC’s instruction to return another container to Dublin Ferry Terminal. After the Stateline depot refused it, GKT brought the container to its own depot and said it would arrange delivery once its invoice was paid. MSC then told depots not to release or accept its containers through GKT. GKT said the instruction cost it business; MSC said it was protecting its property after the earlier retention.
The judge found, for the purpose of the injunction application, that securing payment was at least one reason GKT retained containers. He did not find that this conduct, GKT’s email describing the consent interim order as a High Court ruling, or delays in progressing the case amounted to misconduct barring equitable relief. The interim order, granted by consent in August 2021, had expired on 11 October 2021. MSC continued not to enforce the embargo while the application was before the court.
The court treated the requested order as prohibitory and found the threshold for a serious issue met on GKT’s claim that MSC’s action may have been wrongful in its particular context. It was not satisfied that GKT had established a fair question on abuse of a dominant position, in particular because it had not defined the relevant market. It did not assess the strength of the defamation claim, finding no link between that claim and the injunction sought absent a suggestion the alleged defamation would be repeated.
The judge considered damages an adequate remedy for GKT, whose losses could be assessed financially, and was satisfied MSC could meet a damages award if GKT succeeded. He also weighed GKT’s stated undertaking not to retain MSC containers pending trial against the risk of compelling dealings between parties whose working relationship had broken down and the prospect of court supervision. He refused the injunction. The substantive claims remain for determination in the proceedings.