The Court of Appeal has increased Patrick Sheehy’s damages for the loss of his fishing vessel, the MV Atlantic Mariner, from €25,000 to €168,450, but rejected his claim for loss of use. The court assessed the damages itself after allowing his appeal against the High Court’s assessment. The respondent’s liability for the vessel’s loss had already been established and was not in issue in this appeal.
The vessel foundered in June 2008 after dragging its anchor during a storm and later becoming stuck in mud. The damages retrial in the High Court concerned the vessel’s value and loss of use only. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had not properly accounted for the vessel’s fishing licences, tonnage and kilowattage when valuing it. It also found that the judge had treated the vessel’s poor condition as reducing its value too far, without fully engaging with evidence that it remained fundamentally intact.
The appeal court assessed the vessel’s basic value at €450,000, using evidence from a respondent’s witness about the value of a working fishing boat of this type with valid licences and tonnage. It then deducted €241,550, the amount the bank recovered when it sold the vessel’s tonnage in 2013, and €40,000 for the work needed to return the boat to service. Those deductions produced the €168,450 award.
The court noted that evidence about the vessel’s condition showed it was not ready to be leased: its deck needed work, some electronic equipment was missing, and maintenance and repairs were required. But the evidence did not establish that it was nearly worthless. The court also noted that the plaintiff’s evidence about purchase price, improvements and earlier valuations was unsupported or required caution.
The plaintiff also sought compensation for lost use. The Court of Appeal ruled that such a claim could, in principle, accompany compensation for the value of a commercial asset. It set the possible loss period from 29 October 2008, when the arrest warrant was discharged, to 19 July 2013, when the bank sold the tonnage. But it found that Sheehy had not proved a financial loss for that period. The court accepted that a market existed for leasing fishing vessels and considered evidence about possible earnings, but concluded he had not shown he could finance the repairs needed to make this vessel leasable. It also cited the absence of records establishing the vessel’s earlier income and the failure to lease the tonnage while he awaited resolution of the claim.
The court left costs unresolved. It allowed the parties two weeks to consider whether they wanted a further hearing on costs, including costs in the Court of Appeal and the High Court.