The High Court has refused an application by three plaintiffs to invite the parties in a long-running marine licensing dispute to use mediation or another alternative dispute resolution process.
The proceedings began in 2003 and concern decisions by officials of the Department responsible for communications and marine resources about licences, surveys, exemptions and other regulatory matters affecting nine vessels. The plaintiffs sought relief over decisions including vessel detentions, safety equipment requirements, recognition of a foreign certificate and operations linked to Doolin and the Aran Islands.
The plaintiffs alleged that decisions affecting their businesses were unlawful, unfair or discriminatory, breached Irish or European law, and were intended to damage their businesses or benefit competitors. They also alleged misfeasance in public office and other legal wrongs. These were claims made in the proceedings; the judgment on this application did not determine their merits. The third plaintiff had discontinued the case.
The plaintiffs argued mediation could save court time and costs, potentially resolve the whole dispute, and help preserve ongoing dealings with the Department. The defendants opposed the application, citing the delay, the seriousness and breadth of the allegations, the complexity of the factual and legal issues, and the potential length and cost of mediation. They said the claims, including requests for declarations, were better resolved by a trial, potentially split between liability and damages.
The court noted that discovery had taken place and that the action was ready to be set down for trial. It considered whether the issues were amenable to mediation and whether the defendants’ opposition was bona fide, applying principles from earlier High Court and Court of Appeal decisions in *Atlantic Shellfish*.
Justice Costello found the plaintiffs had not identified particular issues that mediation could narrow. A settlement would not itself provide the declaratory relief sought, and the court said resolution would require the plaintiffs to abandon those claims and the defendants to abandon their long-maintained position on liability. The judge also considered the case’s complexity, its advanced stage, the defendants’ opposition and their entitlement to have serious allegations against public officials tested in court.
The court concluded the dispute was not suited to the proposed ADR process and that the defendants’ opposition was entirely bona fide. It refused the relief sought under Order 56A, rule 2. The judgment decided only the mediation application; it did not decide the underlying claims or damages.