A haulage firm has been refused a High Court injunction over a shipping company’s ban on the collecting and delivering of shipping containers at Dublin Port.
Gary KevilleTransport Ltd (GKT) last August got a temporary injunction preventing leading shipping container firm MSC (Mediterranean Shipping) Company from imposing an embargo against GKT lorries picking up or dropping off goods containers at MSC depots at the port.
The injunction expired in October and MSC no longer imposed the embargo, the court heard.
However, the question of whether north Dublin-based GKT was entitled to a continuing, or interlocutory, injunction remained and that issue came before Mr Justice Conor Dignam.
The court heard the dispute between the two companies arose over two incidents in which GKT claimed it was entitled to impose certain charges against MSC for having to transport and hold two containers which had to be relocated away from their original destinations at the port.
The business structure does not involve any contractual relationship between the two firms.
Goods carried within the containers are owned by GKT’s customers and the containers involved were the property of MSC. GKT’s customers book passage and GKT is then tasked by its customers with transporting the goods to and from port within the shipping company’s containers.
In its main action, GKT claims MSC is guilty of unlawful interference with GKT’s commercial activities, interfering with its economic interest, abuse of dominant position and also pleads breach of property rights and right to a good name.
MSC denied the claims and opposed the continuing of the injunction against the embargo.
Standard of proof
In his decision refusing the injunction, Mr Justice Dignam said GKT had not established to the required standard of proof that there is a fair question to be tried that MSC is guilty of an abuse of a dominant position.
He was satisfied however that GKT had established a fair question to be tried that MSC’s action was wrongful or unlawful.
He found that the awarding of damages (if it wins its main action) would be an adequate remedy for GKT.
GKT had not discharged the burden of proof that the balance of convenience, or balance of justice, favoured the granting of the interlocutory injunction sought, he said.