Island Ferries Teoranta v Minister for Communications

Last updated

Island Ferries Teoranta v Minister for Communications [2015] IESC 95; [2015] 3 IR 637, [1] is an Irish Supreme Court case concerned an appeal brought by the Minister against a High Court decision which found that he had acted ultra vires when imposing a per capita passenger charge on ferry services to the Aran Islands. The respondent was a company who owned and operated vessels used for passenger services; they challenged the per capita charges imposed by the Minister pursuant to the Fishery Harbour Centres Acts 1968-1980 and the Fishery Harbour Centres (Rates and Charges) Order 2003. The company also challenged the legality of the 2003 Order and refused to pay the charges imposed on the basis that it was outside of the Minister's powers. In the High Court, it was successfully argued that the Minister acted unlawfully in imposing charges contrary to the Competition Act 2002 and alternatively, that the order and provisions of the Fishery Harbour Centres Act 1968 were unconstitutional.

Contents

The Minister appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, where it was decided that the 2003 Order was ultra vires and could not have been enacted pursuant to section 4(2)(b) of the 1968 Act, which provided that the Minister could "by order, fix rates, tolls and other charges for the use of facilities", as it had a drastic and unreasonably harsh impact on the plaintiff company especially. It imposed an immediate and severe increase in operating costs, to the detriment of the plaintiff.

Island Ferries Teoranta v Minister for Communications
Coat of arms of Ireland.svg
Coat of arms of Ireland
Court Supreme Court of Ireland
Full case nameIsland Ferries Teoranta v Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources & Ors
Decided15th of December 2015
Citation(s)[2015] IESC 95
Transcript(s) https://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2015/S95.html
Case history
Appealed fromHigh Court
Appealed toSupreme Court
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingDenham C.J., O'Donnell Donal J., McKechnie J., Dunne J.,Charleton J.
Case opinions
The Supreme Court held that the determination of whether or not there has been an abuse of a dominant position is fact-specific and is based on an analysis of all relevant factors.
Keywords

Background

The first instance included Island Ferries Teoranta, which operated a ferry service between Rossaveel Harbour in Galway Bay and the Aran Islands. The Fishery Harbour Centres Acts 1968–1980, [2] had fees put in place by the Minister. [1] They have to be paid for at the harbour by Island Ferries. The minister subsequently tried to enact new fees by order in 2004. Island Ferries subsequently challenged the validity of the decision and accompanying fees and refused to pay the additional sums. [1] At the pre-2004 rate, they kept paying the fees. The Minister asserted unpaid harbour fees in 2005 amounting to €201,476.74. [1] The agency then withdrew passenger vessel licences for two of the boats operated by the ferry operator because the company failed to pay. Additionally, the harbour master temporarily detained one of their vessels. Island Ferries put up a bond of €200,000 after talks to ensure the vessel's release. [1]

It was acknowledged that Galway City Council and the Minister both held dominant positions in the relevant market. [3] They both said that the fees that they set for the use of the two harbours fell within the broad appreciation that the Oireachtas must be assumed to have taken into account when granting each charge for these maritime services and when permitting the setting of fees. The abuse of a dominant position by either respondent in the relevant market is denied by both parties. [4]

The ferries service then made an application to the High Court to contest the validity of the fees and seek compensation for the losses it said were caused by the detention of its vessel.The business argued that the charges were unjustified, unfair, and not based on actual costs and that the payment demand violated EU competition law (section 5 of the Competition Act of 2002). [2] The additional prices proposed by the Minister violated the 1968 Act, according to the High Court, which awarded the ferry service €92,243 in compensatory damages. [5] The Minister submitted an appeal of the ruling to the Supreme Court.

Holding of the Supreme Court

Whether Galway County Council constituted an enterprise using a dominant position in the provision of harbour services on the Aran Islands was a question that the Supreme Court had to resolve. According to Mr. Justice Charleton, it is not illegal under the Competition Act of 2002 [2] to use a dominant position. Exploiting customers through monopolistic pricing or other unfair business practices is prohibited. [6] The artificial suppression of competition by unfair means can be a part of this abuse of a dominant position. Based on the case's circumstances, the court concluded that the council had not abused its position of dominance. The court also cited the following information from the EU case Europemballage Corporation and Continental Can Company v Commission: "It is the effect of the conduct alleged to constitute abuse on the market that indicates whether such abuse has taken place." [7]

The Supreme Court held that the determination of whether or not there has been an abuse of a dominant position is fact-specific and is based on an analysis of all relevant factors. [8] In response to the High Court's decision favouring the ferries, the Supreme Court held that the trial judge's judgment of evident unfairness was supported by the rise in the level of charge that ferry owners must pay. [9] The judge's factual and legal conclusions in this case should be upheld. [10] The Supreme Court held that Galway County Council had not abused its position of dominance and that the trial judge's judgement of evident unfairness was supported by the rise in the level of charge that ferry owners must pay. The court concluded that none of these appeals could succeed on any of their grounds.

The court came to the conclusion that none of these appeals could succeed on any of their grounds and thus dismissed the appeal. [11]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal Trade Commission</span> United States government agency

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is an independent agency of the United States government whose principal mission is the enforcement of civil (non-criminal) antitrust law and the promotion of consumer protection. The FTC shares jurisdiction over federal civil antitrust law enforcement with the Department of Justice Antitrust Division. The agency is headquartered in the Federal Trade Commission Building in Washington, DC.

An unfair labor practice (ULP) in United States labor law refers to certain actions taken by employers or unions that violate the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 29 U.S.C. § 151–169 and other legislation. Such acts are investigated by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rossaveal</span> Village in Connacht, Ireland

Rossaveal or Rossaveel is a Gaeltacht village and townland in the Connemara district of County Galway in the west of Ireland. It is the main ferry port for the Aran Islands in Galway Bay. It is about 37 kilometres (23 mi) from Galway city. The village is located in the historical barony of Moycullen.

The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) was a non-ministerial government department of the United Kingdom, established by the Fair Trading Act 1973, which enforced both consumer protection and competition law, acting as the United Kingdom's economic regulator. The intention was for the OFT to make markets work well for consumers, ensuring vigorous competition between fair-dealing businesses and prohibiting unfair practices such as rogue trading, scams, and cartels. Its role was modified and its powers changed by the Enterprise Act 2002.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Adrian Hardiman</span>

Adrian Hardiman was an Irish judge who served as a Judge of the Supreme Court from 2000 to 2016.

<i>Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National plc</i>

Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National plc and Others[2009] UKSC 6is a judicial decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court relating to bank charges in the United Kingdom, with reference to the situation where a bank account holder goes into unplanned overdraft.

Microsoft has been involved in numerous high-profile legal matters that involved litigation over the history of the company, including cases against the United States, the European Union, and competitors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">The Competition Act, 2002</span> Act of the Parliament of India

The Competition Act, 2002 was enacted by the Parliament of India and governs Indian competition law. It replaced the archaic The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. Under this legislation, the Competition Commission of India was established to prevent the activities that have an adverse effect on competition in India. This act extends to whole of India.

Unfair terms in English contract law are regulated under three major pieces of legislation, compliance with which is enforced by the Competition & Markets Authority (CMA). The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 is the first main Act, which covers some contracts that have exclusion and limitation clauses. For example, it will not extend to cover contracts which are mentioned in Schedule I, consumer contracts, and international supply contracts. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 replaced the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and bolstered further requirements for consumer contracts. The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 concerns certain sales practices.

<i>Engineering Design and Management v. Burton</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Tracey, T/A Engineering Design & Management v Burton, [2016] IESC 16, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court considered the Irish courts' ability to limit the right of access to the courts and, in extreme cases, to dismiss proceedings.

<i>Adam v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Adam v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38 is a reported decision of the Irish Supreme Court, in which the Court, in affirming High Court orders to strike out two judicial review proceedings as frivolous, held that, to challenge the decision of a public authority, one must attempt to rely on proved individual circumstances.

<i>Sivsivadze v Minister for Justice</i>

Sivsivadze v Minister for Justice[2015] IESC 53; [2015] 2 ILRM 73; [2016] 2 IR 403 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to the constitutionality of section 3(1) of the Immigration Act 1999, under which the Minister for Justice order the deportation of a non-national for an indefinite period.

<i>Blood v DPP</i> Irish Supreme Court case

In Blood v DPP [2005] IESC 8, the Irish Supreme Court confirmed that a right to an expeditious trial is implied in the right to a fair trial under Irish law. The decision of McGuinness J further suggested that "blameworthy prosecution delay was insufficient without some evidence of prejudice to the accused, whether in the form of a real risk of an unfair trial or stress and anxiety arising from the delay". The applicant in the case was successful in their appeal.

<i>Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform v Bailey</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform v Bailey[2012] IESC 16, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held they did not have the jurisdiction to order the surrender of a non-Irish citizen for the commission of a crime committed in Ireland. Ian Bailey was accused of murdering a French citizen in Ireland. The French judicial authorities requested the extradition of Bailey from Ireland to France so to question him about the crime. However, the issue in this case was that Bailey is not a French citizen, rather his nationality is British. This case dealt with an unprecedented question of law as usually the person requested by the issuing state is a national of that state. The significance of this case was that the Supreme Court dealt with a situation where Bailey was a British national yet the French authorities requested for his extradition. Nevertheless, the Court decided that Bailey could not be surrendered because the French had not actually charged him with a crime.

<i>The Health (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2004</i> Irish Supreme Court case

The Health (Amendment) Bill 2004 [2005] IESC 7 was an Irish Supreme Court case where a bill containing amendments to the Health Act 1970 was brought before the supreme court after issues arose as to whether the provisions of the Bill were constitutional. The court found that the bill was repugnant to the constitution. The court ruled that patients were entitled to recover unlawful charges that they had paid because a person's rights to recover property are protected by the constitution

<i>P.M. v District Judge Miriam Malone and the Director of Public Prosecutions</i> Irish Supreme Court case

P.M. v District Judge Miriam Malone and the Director of Public Prosecutions[2002] IESC 46 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the court barred the further prosecution of a man for the alleged sexual abuse of his sister due to the nature of the offences and on the grounds of the pre-charge delay in criminal prosecution. A "inordinate" delay of seven years before the man was charged, coupled with the nature of the offences being described as "a form of sexual experimentation between two children under the age of ten" led to the decision of the court.

<i>McFarlane v Director of Public Prosecutions</i> Irish Supreme Court case

McFarlane v Director of Public Prosecutions[2008] IESC 7; [2008] 2 I.R. 117 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the right to a fair trial under both Article 38.1 of the Constitution and Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights does not preclude prosecution in cases of prosecutorial delay unless the accused can demonstrate either that some specific prejudice resulted or that the delay was well outside the norm for the particular proceedings.

<i>Dunne v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Dunne v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, [2007] IESC 60; [2008] 2 IR 775, is an Irish Supreme Court case concerning costs in public interest challenges. The Court allowed an appeal against the order for costs made in the High Court and also granted costs against the appellant for the unsuccessful appeal to the Supreme Court.

<i>McInerney Homes Ltd v Cos Acts 1990</i> Irish Supreme Court case

McInerney Homes Ltd v Cos Acts 1990 [2011] IESC 31 is one of the few Irish Supreme Court cases on the topic of examinership under the Companies (Amendment) Act 1990. The Court held that the onus of proof under the legislation lay with the Examiner to show that a proposed scheme of debt restructuring was not unfair to any interested party.

<i>John Gilligan v Ireland & Others</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Gilligan v Ireland[2013] IESC 45; [2013] 2 IR 745; [2014] ILRM 153 is an Irish Supreme Court case where the constitutionality of section 13 of the Criminal Law Act 1976 was challenged. This statutory provision related to the sentencing of those who commit a further crime while in prison. The section primarily says that any sentence of imprisonment imposed should be consecutive to the sentence being served. It was argued that John Gilligan was subject to discrimination because of this mandatory scheme. Significantly, this case also put forward the concept of proportionality and the sentencing power given to the judiciary.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Island Ferries Teoranta -v- Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources & ors [2015] IESC 95, 15 December 2015, retrieved 2024-02-12
  2. 1 2 3 Book (eISB), electronic Irish Statute. "electronic Irish Statute Book (eISB)". www.irishstatutebook.ie. Retrieved 2023-05-01.
  3. ↑ Patrick Bock, Henry Mostyn and Patrick Todd, 'Lexology GTDT – Dominance' page 6. Retrieved 2024-02-12.
  4. ↑ "Tort Litigation 2012: All the Recent Developments - School of Law - Trinity College Dublin". www.tcd.ie. Retrieved 2024-02-13.
  5. ↑ Varley, Declan (2012-01-26). "High Court challenge to council's island levy to be heard in March". Galway Advertiser. Retrieved 2024-02-13.
  6. ↑ "Restitution – Page 7 – cearta.ie". 2012-08-22. Retrieved 2024-02-13.
  7. ↑ Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 April 1975. Europemballage Corporation and Continental Can Company Inc. v Commission of the European Communities. Case 6-72., 1972, retrieved 2024-02-12
  8. ↑ "A Framework for European Competition Law". www.bloomsburycollections.com. Retrieved 2024-02-13.
  9. ↑ Colm Ó hOisín, 'Partnership: Significant Recent Cases Include'. Retrieved 2024-02-13.
  10. ↑ McFadden, David (2014-07-18). The Private Enforcement of Competition Law in Ireland. A&C Black. ISBN   978-1-78225-123-1.
  11. ↑ "News Archive 2015 - Compecon". 2015-05-06. Retrieved 2024-02-13.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.