Therefore, restricting the use of the linkspan may have been legal in 1995, but as economic and other circumstances have changed, since 1995, it may no longer be the case. It will now be open for Seaside to argue, if it wishes to return to court, that the agreement, and the restriction on the use of the linkspan, is currently unlawful.

Local businessman Peter Whipp has won his appeal over a decision to strike out his petition seeking to challenge the IOM Steam Packet’s (SPC) monopoly use of one of the linkspans in Douglas Harbour.

His company, Seaside Shipping Ltd, had approached the Dept. of Transport (DoT), in early 2007, with a view to operating a service between Douglas and a port in the UK, located somewhere between Cumbria and Holyhead in Anglesey.

This proposal was rejected in a letter from Capt. Mike Brew, Director of Harbours, dated 23^rd May 2007; which ultimately led to a Petition of Doleance being lodged with the court in September 2007.

Deemster Doyle, who heard the applications by the DoT and SPC and granted the strike on the grounds of delay and acquiescence, has been found, by their Honours Tattersall and Mann, to have plainly erred in making his decision.

Essentially the decision hinged on the date at which Seaside should have mounted a challenge; in 1995 when the ‘User Agreement’ was established, within a short time afterwards or, as successfully argued by Seaside, once the ‘rejection’ had been received from Capt. Brew.

Their Honours determined that when the agreement was made in 1995 it had to be assumed it was legal to do so, so any challenge, at that time, would have been absurd.

However, because the Order (which gave ‘life’ to the agreement) has to be compliant with European law on trade, any ‘Measures’ that restrict trade, have to be assessed objectively; and be appropriate in the circumstances appertaining at that time.

Therefore, restricting the use of the linkspan may have been legal in 1995, but as economic and other circumstances have changed, since 1995, it may no longer be the case. It will now be open for Seaside to argue, if it wishes to return to court, that the agreement, and the restriction on the use of the linkspan, is currently unlawful.

Their Honours also pointed out that any argument that SPC shareholders, and their investment, could be prejudiced if a competitor was allowed to operate alongside their service, doesn’t particularly hold water; as the agreement specifically recognizes a situation where it is struck down for ‘illegality’.

This judgment probably comes as a bit of disappointment to Mcquarrie shareholders, the owners of the SPC, as it was only brought to the attention of Tynwald members yesterday, during Question Time, a newspaper article in Sydney, Australia, speculates that the SPC is up for sale.

However, it probably comes as welcome news, particularly to freight customers, who have for some considerable time now complained about the cost of SPC’s services.