Doubt cast over oil transfer plan

Port governance ruling may help conservationists’ fight to stop deal

CONSERVATIONISTS hope a Highland court case could lift the threat of nine million tonnes of crude oil being transferred between tankers lying near precious environmental sites in waters where dolphins swim.

The case is looking to see whether the systems of governance at Cromarty Firth Port Authority (CFPA), which wants to carry out the oil transfer, were properly established in law.

If they were not, then it means decisions made by the authority will be brought into question, including the ship-to-ship oil transfer plans, which have upset campaigners.

However, the litigation could also have serious impact on some of Scotland’s busiest ports, including Aberdeen.

The case is being taken by the former owner of the Invergordonbased Port Services Ltd (PSL), Wendy Clark. The action was believed to have failed at the Court of Session, but in fact was sent down to Tain Sheriff Court in Easter Ross for continued hearing.

This follows the Scottish Civil Courts Reform into court procedures in Scotland, which recommended any case for damages of less than £100,000 should be heard in the local sheriff court first.

Even so, according to Mrs Clark, it may yet return to Edinburgh, given the issues raised.

The case involves a rent bond of £1 million, which the CFPA had demanded from PSL before agreeing to lease them space at Invergordon. This had seriously affected the company’s finances.

Mrs Clark explained that her company had been set up in 1986 and grew to become one of the leading providers of logistical support and engineering services to the oil, gas and renewable energy sector.

“However, our business expansion conflicted with the public agencies’ Masterplan for the Cromarty Firth and this may lie behind the CFPA demanding the £1 million rent bond from us.

“The basis of our litigation is the port authority hadn’t asked for similar rent bonds from other tenants. We don’t believe the legislation, which set up the port authority, gave it powers to extract such a rent bond.

“Thirdly, we are advised by our QC that the constitution of the board of the port authority is incompetent in law.

“Counsel’s opinion is clear that the port authority was acting ‘ultra vires’ beyond its legal power or authority, so there is no time limit to a legal challenge.”

She added: “If a court finds the CFPA did indeed act ‘ultra vires’, it would call into question all the decisions the directors have taken since, including their controversial decision to apply for a licence to conduct ship-to-ship oil transfers.”

A CFPA spokeswoman said “We can confirm that this matter continues to be subject to legal proceedings. As such, we’re unable to comment further.”

Transport Scotland, for the Scottish Government, also refused to comment because of the case.