The High Court has refused an appeal by the Marine Survey Office (MSO) over the detention of the bulk carrier *Cielo di Monaco* at Greenore Port, Co. Louth, and affirmed the Circuit Court order allowing the vessel operator’s appeal against the detention notice.
In a judgment delivered on 30 November 2018, Mr Justice Denis McDonald held that the MSO’s appeal, which was confined to specified questions of law, provided no basis to interfere with the Circuit Court’s decision. That decision set aside the notice of detention issued on 30 September 2015. The High Court did not order compensation or determine any claim for financial loss.
The vessel grounded on a falling tide after berthing at Greenore on 27 September 2015. Cracks in its hull plating caused water to enter the forepeak tank. The MSO detained the ship the following day, citing the hull damage and the failure to report it to the MSO. The detention was lifted on 9 October, after repairs were completed.
The operator, D’Amico Società di Navigazione, disputed that detention was necessary. Its expert evidence described the damage as limited and said the water ingress was within the capacity of the vessel’s pumps. The vessel’s master said stability calculations indicated that it could safely sail. The MSO inspector, by contrast, said he considered the damage an immediate and serious threat to the ship and marine environment. The Circuit Court heard affidavit evidence without cross-examination and found the detention unjustified; it also held, as an alternative ground, that an accidental-damage exemption applied.
The High Court concluded that an appeal to the Circuit Court under the Port State Control Regulations is a “hybrid” appeal: the court may review alleged errors and receive evidence needed to reach its own judgment on disputed facts. It must give appropriate weight to an inspector’s expertise, but it is not bound by the inspector’s view of contested facts. The owner or operator retains the burden of proving undue detention or delay.
The MSO’s specified questions did not challenge the Circuit Court’s central finding that there was no clear hazard justifying detention. The High Court therefore treated the questions as moot where answering them could not change the outcome. It gave an obiter view that Annex X criteria inform decisions under the detention rules, but declined to answer several other general or moot questions, including questions about accidental damage and temporary repairs. It also noted that the legal basis for a reporting duty to the MSO had not been identified in the appeal.
The court refused the MSO’s appeal and affirmed the Circuit Court order. For future appeals, the judge said inspectors should provide evidence explaining the circumstances leading to inspection and detention, and the Annex X criteria relied on.