Judgment: 2026-06-26 · Court archive

High Court refuses to remove seafood firm and director from MV Amethyst injury case

High Court · [2026] IEHC 409

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Aidan McNally
  • Ocean Well Limited
  • Ocean Dragon Limited
  • Bing Liang Xia
  • Mr Justice Barr
What

High Court refuses to remove seafood firm and director from MV Amethyst injury case

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • High Court
  • MV Amethyst
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Ocean Well Limited, the vessel’s registered owner, remains the first defendant. Ocean Dragon Limited, which bought the Amethyst’s catch for its seafood business, and Bing Liang Xia, a director and shareholder in both companies, had asked the High Court to strike out the case against them on the basis that responsibility for the vessel rested only with Ocean Well.

The High Court has refused to remove a seafood company and its director from personal injury proceedings brought by fisherman Aidan McNally over the sinking of the MV Amethyst in September 2022.

Mr McNally alleges that the vessel capsized and sank because it was unsafe and unseaworthy. He says he was thrown around the wheelhouse, became trapped as the boat went below the waterline and escaped before swimming to safety, suffering physical and psychiatric injuries. Those allegations have not yet been determined.

Ocean Well Limited, the vessel’s registered owner, remains the first defendant. Ocean Dragon Limited, which bought the Amethyst’s catch for its seafood business, and Bing Liang Xia, a director and shareholder in both companies, had asked the High Court to strike out the case against them on the basis that responsibility for the vessel rested only with Ocean Well.

Mr Justice Barr rejected that application. He found there was evidence capable of supporting an argument that Mr Xia was also an "owner" for regulatory purposes because he had described himself as manager of the vessel in a compliance declaration. The judge also held that the plaintiff had an arguable case that Mr Xia exercised sufficient control over the companies and fishing operation for his role to require examination at trial.

The court also took account of what happened to the vessel after the sinking. Mr McNally’s former solicitor sought preservation and inspection facilities in October and November 2022, but the ship was sold on November 29 and subsequently stripped of equipment, fixtures and fittings. Mr McNally says this seriously impaired his ability to inspect the vessel. The court said any consequences of that conduct are matters for the trial judge.

The strike-out application was refused. Separately, because the defendants had not yet delivered defences, Mr Justice Barr proposed an "unless order": judgment for Mr McNally unless each defendant files a defence within four weeks. Final orders were to be considered after written submissions, with the case listed again for July 16, 2026.

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