The Supreme Court has dismissed Michael Hoey’s appeal against the refusal of an injunction concerning a barge removed from a canal by Waterways Ireland. It upheld the High Court order refusing interim relief; it did not decide the final outcome of Hoey’s underlying action.
The dispute centres on barge 43M, which Waterways Ireland removed on 11 October 2011. The agency said the vessel had sunk, obstructed the canal and reduced the navigable width by about half. Hoey disputed the basis for its removal and sought orders preventing its disposal, among other relief. He argued that damages would not adequately compensate him if the barge were sold.
The High Court refused the interlocutory injunction in April 2012. On appeal, the Supreme Court’s review was limited by an earlier case-management order to whether the High Court was legally correct to refuse that application. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court in 2021, after delays in bringing it on for hearing.
In a judgment delivered by Mr Justice Peter Charleton, the Court said the interim application had to be assessed on the limited material available before a full trial. It noted the lengthy delay and said that delay weighed against the claim that urgent court intervention was needed. The Court also distinguished the broad requests to maintain waterways or prevent the disposal of canal property and water from the narrower dispute about barge 43M.
The judgment referred to canal bye-laws that allow the removal and storage of boats that have sunk or interfere with canal use, and permit disposal in specified circumstances. The Court concluded that the law provided authority for removal, storage and disposal, and that Hoey had not established a reasonably arguable case that Waterways Ireland acted unlawfully. It also considered the barge to be an ordinary, readily valued vessel rather than a unique or irreplaceable item, and held that damages could provide an adequate remedy if Hoey succeeded at trial.
Because those conclusions defeated the basis for interim relief, the Court said it was unnecessary to assess the balance of convenience or whether the status quo should be preserved. It dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s refusal of an injunction. It did not determine the final claims in the plenary action. The judgment said any eventual trial should be kept within clear limits through case management.