An action by Port of Waterford company against CIÉ which held up the €32.6 million sale of development land on Waterford's north quays is not proceeding, the High Court heard yesterday.
The action was over access to a railway line. However, while the port company and CIÉ were unable between them to resolve the dispute, the case was not now proceeding because of an agreement with the purchaser of the land over the right of way issue, Mr Justice Peter Kelly was told.
After hearing submissions from both on who should pay the costs of the case, the judge said he would make no order for costs as the dispute could and should have been resolved much more quickly. What had saved the situation now was a more sensible commercial view adopted by the purchaser.
He struck out the action and made no order for costs, meaning both sides must bear their own.
The judge had admitted the action to the Commercial Court, the commercial division of the High Court, last February.
The port company claimed it had a substantial pension deficit of €11.9 million, and the completion of the north quays sale was required to address its pension funding obligations.
The dispute between the port company and CIÉ and Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Company concerned whether, and to what extent, the port company enjoyed a right of way over a railway line owned by the defendants. Access to the north quays may only be gained by crossing the line.
The port company claimed it sold the north quays in Waterford to O'Brien O'Flynn Ltd (now Tarcel Ltd) for €32.6 million in February 2005.
To complete the sale the port company said it had to produce evidence that the defendants acknowledge that the right of access to Frank Cassin wharf (part of the north quays) was an "all purpose and at all times right".
The defendants were called upon on July 17th, 2006, to provide the waivers as set out in a November 2004 agreement, but refused to do so, it was alleged.
The port company claimed the defendants had insisted that the closure of the gates on the railway crossing were to be subject to their overall control.
It rejected a suggestion that, if the defendants had agreed to grant a general right of way to the port company over the railway line, such an agreement was void because it was an interference with a statutory function to operate the railway line.
The defendants had denied the claims.
It was contended there was never any basis for the action, and that the port company had promised to give an acknowledgment from CIÉ to the purchaser on the access issue which CIÉ was not contracted to give.