The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the Port of Waterford Company’s power to sell parts of its harbour, including the North Wharf.
In a judgment delivered on 12 July 2006, Mr Justice Fennelly concluded that the Harbours Act 1996 permits a port company to buy and sell property to perform its functions. The court held that the company was empowered, subject to the Act, to sell parts of the harbour. The appeal was dismissed.
The case was brought by the Attorney General at the relation of O.F. Fishing Ltd. The company, incorporated in 2004 to carry on the fishing business of several O’Flaherty brothers, challenged the proposed sale. It argued that the North Wharf was subject to public rights and that the Port of Waterford Company lacked authority to sell it.
The High Court had accepted evidence that the fishing operation used the North Wharf and Frank Cassin Wharf, and that no other permanently safe harbour or anchorage was within a reasonable distance of its Kilmore Quay headquarters. But the Supreme Court said this appeal concerned public rights and the company’s statutory powers, not private rights or a refusal of port access to the appellant.
A key argument relied on a 1878 private Act that provided for joint public and railway-company use of the relevant part of the North Wharf. The Supreme Court held that the Waterford Harbour Commissioners (Acquisition of Property) Act 1964 repealed that provision for the same area, so it could no longer support the claim.
The court also considered the 1996 Act’s provisions for port-company objects, land disposal and the transfer of harbour property. It found that public obligations concerning use of port facilities did not determine whether the company could sell individual parts of the harbour. It did not reach a definitive conclusion about the full extent of port companies’ public obligations.
Port operations had largely moved from the city area to Bellview, which remains within the defined harbour limits. The company had, according to evidence in the High Court, assured the appellant that facilities would be provided there, subject to traffic demands. The fishing company considered Bellview unsuitable, but the Supreme Court said any dispute about those issues would have to await another day.
The court also rejected reliance on a 1626 city charter as establishing a right to land goods on the river’s north bank, and said historical fishing and navigation arguments did not give users a right to prevent the sale of port facilities.