A High Court judicial review over who could deal with the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources about the passenger vessel Galway Bay was moot by the time it came before the court, Mr Justice Herbert ruled. The court did not decide the underlying dispute over the meaning of “owner” under the Merchant Shipping Act 1992.
John Joe Fitzpatrick had been granted leave to seek an order requiring the department to deal with him either as the vessel’s owner in law, charterer, manager and operator, or as the registered owner’s authorised agent. He also sought damages of about €4,300 a day for alleged loss following the cancellation of a planned survey, as well as interest and costs.
The vessel was registered to O’Halloran Shipping Limited. Fitzpatrick had entered into a chartering, leasing or hiring arrangement and sought a change to its passenger certificate to permit additional routes, including between Doolin and the Aran Islands. Department surveyors inspected the vessel and identified defects. After its crew completed a safety procedures course, Fitzpatrick sought temporary clearance to operate, but the department declined to approve his nominated masters.
The judgment records that a department surveyor initially said the department dealt with the registered owner. O’Halloran Shipping then applied for the change in routes. A further survey took place at Doolin on 25 July 2005, following that application. The department later found the vessel unsafe for the requested areas because of its size, handling characteristics and Doolin Harbour’s arrangement, and refused the certificate. Neither Fitzpatrick nor the registered owner appealed that refusal to the District Court.
Justice Herbert held that the refusal had resolved the substantial matter in dispute and rendered the judicial review claim academic. He said there was no basis for the damages relief sought in the judicial review, given the refusal to authorise the additional routes. The court did not adjudicate on the parties’ competing interpretations of “owner.”
The judge also considered a note seeking an appointment that described Fitzpatrick as an owner of Galway Bay. He called the description a serious misrepresentation but accepted that it was an unauthorised action by counsel, outside the scope of his retainer, and found the department had not acted to its detriment. He said it would be unjust to award costs against Fitzpatrick on that basis.
The court ordered each party to bear its own costs of the judicial review. It made no order awarding costs to either side.