The Mayo News

A judge who recently ruled that Shell E&P Ireland was in contempt of court has agreed to adjourn an application by Shell Shell contempt of court challenge adjourned 


Áine Ryan

A District Court judge who recently ruled that Shell E&P Ireland was in contempt of court has agreed to adjourn an application by Shell to clarify the case in the High Court.
After lengthy submissions at Westport District Court yesterday, Judge Mary Devins agreed to allow legal representatives of both Shell and the applicant, Ms Monica Muller (pictured), of Rossport South, to consult over the draft wording of the application.
In a related matter, central to the case, Shell said it had made an application to next week’s sitting of Belmullet District Court (Wednesday 14) for the vacation of the court order.
On September 4 last, Judge Devins found Shell in contempt of a district court order, issued in November 2007, prohibiting the company, or its agents from carrying out exploratory works on the Rossport commonage in north Mayo. Part of the new route for the controversial Corrib gas pipeline is set to go through these lands.
However, in a surprise move Shell challenged her ruling, stating it was ‘very unhappy; and wanted the minutiae of her judgment to be clarified in the High Court. 
The court order was originally made after Monica Muller, and over 20 others brought a case under Section 26 of the Gas Act, 1976. They claimed they had not been served with proper notice of Shell’s intention to carry out the works.
Subsequently, Ms Muller took a civil action against the company, claiming it had breached the order on four different occasions.
However, at hearings last May and June, Mr John Gordon, counsel for Shell, argued that the company had acquired a share in the commonage in the interim and had not entered the lands before advising Ms Muller of its new status.
At these hearings, evidence was also given that Shell had applied to An Bord Pleanála for Compulsory Acquisition Orders (CAOs) for lands under the Gas Act 1976. In anticipation of these CAOs being granted, Shell said inspections of the lands were necessary.
However, it also emerged during the hearings that Shell had never sought to vacate the judge’s order.
Speaking at yesterday’s sitting, Mr Gordon,  for Shell, said his client took ‘the findings of contempt of court very seriously’ and believed that Ms Muller and others may rely on this judgment in future matters.
“These are the two reasons that my client wishes [to make an application] to state a case,” Mr Gordon said. He then cited the following two questions: “Can an order of the district court pursuant to Section 26(4) of the Gas Act 1976 ( as amended) operate to prohibit a co-owner of lands from entering onto such lands as co-owner.  And did the order made on 14 November 2007 prohibit any entry whatsoever onto the commonage lands by the respondent.”
Mr Gordon also argued that there was precedent for referral of a civil matter from the Small Claims Court, Cork City to the High Court in 2008. It involved waste charge payments.
Ms Mairead Casey, for the applicant, said the crux of the matter related to the fact that the respondent had breached a court order.
She likened it to the breaching of a barring order and argued that if a barred party was invited back into the family home, the existing order would still have to be vacated.
After a number of adjournments, Judge Devins challenged the relevance of the questions put on the points of law.
“It suggests to me the High Court’s opinion is being sought in a very wide way and I don’t think it has any relevance to my order,” said Judge Devins.
She consented to an adjournment to allow both parties confer on the wording of the application and adjourned the case for mention to Ballina District Court on October 27 next

---

Share this page