The Court of Appeal has ordered the High Court to reassess damages arising from the loss of the fishing vessel Atlantic Mariner, after finding that the trial judgment did not explain how it resolved conflicting evidence about the boat’s value and condition.
The appeal, decided on 15 May 2018, concerned Patrick Sheehy’s challenge to a €100,000 award for the vessel and the dismissal of his separate claim for loss of use. The Court of Appeal said the trial judge’s finding that the defendants were responsible for the loss was not under appeal.
The vessel was arrested on 3 March 2008 while anchored at Church Strand, Co Cork. Eight days later, during storm-force winds, it dragged its anchors and was towed by the first-named defendants to a mooring in Church Strand Bay, where it later foundered and was declared a total loss.
The High Court had concluded that the vessel was worth €100,000 when it was lost. It relied on evidence of its declining condition, limited fishing activity in 2006 and 2007, and the likely cost of work needed to continue fishing under regulations due to take effect in 2010. It also dismissed the loss-of-use claim, finding that Sheehy could not have funded the work needed for a proposed lease and would not have been able to enter that arrangement.
The appeal judgment described sharply different evidence about the vessel. A witness for Sheehy valued it at €600,000 in 2005 and €650,000 after a new engine was fitted. Defence witnesses questioned whether it had any value by the time of its arrest. Other evidence included a witness’s view that the vessel was in good condition in 2010 and evidence that lack of fishing would not itself reduce a vessel’s value.
Gilligan J said the trial judgment did not explain which witnesses’ evidence it accepted or rejected, or why. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on both issues. It remitted the vessel’s value at the date it foundered to the High Court for an assessment of damages only, and set aside the dismissal of the loss-of-use claim for a separate assessment of damages only.
The ruling does not set a new value for the vessel or decide the amount, if any, payable for loss of use. Both matters were sent back to the High Court for assessment.