High Court: Virgin Media succeeds in claim for damage to subsea cable

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] IEHC 493
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  High Court
• Judge:
  Mr Justice Denis McDonald

Delivering judgment for the High Court, Mr Justice Denis McDonald highlighted that “this is the first case in Ireland in which there has been a trial of a claim brought by the owner of a subsea cable against the owners of a vessel which has caused damage to such a cable”.

Background

The plaintiff sought relief against the owners of a fishing vessel, the “Lida Suzanna”, arising from damage to a subsea cable laid in 1998 known as “Sirius South” running under the Irish Sea from a terminal in Lancashire to Dublin.

The cable, along with a cable known as Sirius North, at the relevant time carried all of the plaintiff’s internet data, television and telephone traffic between the UK and Ireland. The plaintiff claimed that on 26 January 2015, the scallop trawls attached to the Lida Suzanna damaged the cable in international waters in the Irish Sea.

The owners of the trawler denied that the Lida Suzanna caused the damage to the cable, with the skipper of the trawler giving evidence to the effect that he could not recall any problems of unusual chucking or catching of the seabed.

The issues

The defendants inter alia challenged the plaintiff’s ownership of the cable, denied that the plaintiff had suffered loss and challenged its quantification of same, denied that the Lida Suzanna had caused the damage complained of, and asserted that they were entitled to fish over the cable and that it was a duty on part of the cable owner to ensure that the cable did not interfere with fishing activity.

The High Court

Mr Justice McDonald addressed the issue of the plaintiff’s ownership of the cable, noting that the plaintiff was not involved in the commissioning of the laying of the cable and that there were significant gaps in the chain of title produced by it in evidence.

Notwithstanding those difficulties, the court concluded that on the balance of probabilities the plaintiff is the owner of the cable where same was recorded as an asset of the plaintiff in the records of Virgin Media Group since 2007, and that the combination of records and the plaintiff’s undisturbed possession of the cable since 2007 supported the plaintiff’s claim to ownership.

The court was also convinced by the fact that the licensor of the laying, maintenance and use of the cable addressed its invoices to “Virgin Media”, reflecting the licensor’s understanding that ownership of the cable had passed from NTL to a Virgin Media company.

As to whether the plaintiff had suffered a loss, the defendants contended that payments in respect of invoices relating to the cable were made by a different Virgin Media entity and that there was no evidence of any allocation to the plaintiff of the costs of repairs to the cable. 

The plaintiff argued that it was irrelevant whether the cost of repair was paid by the plaintiff or another Virgin Media entity as having regard to, inter alia, Coles v Hetherton [2014] 2 All ER 223, events which occur after the infliction of damage are irrelevant to the calculation of diminution in value.

Mr Justice McDonald considered the principle of restitution and highlighted: “It is an integral part of that principle that the cost of restoration of a chattel to its original condition should be paid by the party which wrongfully damaged that chattel.” 

In those circumstances, the court concluded that the plaintiff suffered loss on the occurrence of damage to its cable and was therefore entitled to pursue its action for damages.

On the issue of whether the Lida Suzanna had caused the damage complained of, the court was convinced that given the recorded speed of the trawler and the evidence of the plaintiff’s fisheries expert, the Lida Suzanna was scallop trawling at the time of the incident and that there was nothing to suggest that it had slowed down to raise its gear before crossing the cable. 

Mr Justice McDonald could not accept the contention on behalf of the defendant that another trawler may have been fishing within 20 metres of the Lida Suzanna when the latter crossed the cable at the relevant time and may have caused the damage complained of, given the risk of entanglement of fishing gear.

The judge was also satisfied on the evidence that the timing of the snagging of the trawls was evidenced by the two turns to starboard made by the Lida Suzanna during which there was a break in the transmission of signals on the fibre optic cable.

As to whether the defendants were liable for the damage to the cable, the court confirmed that a duty of care was owed by the defendants to take reasonable steps to avoid damage to the cable, noting:

Contrary to the assertions of the defendants, the court could find no evidence of any contributory negligence on part of the plaintiff.

Moving to consider the plaintiff’s claim for damages, Mr Justice McDonald fixed the quantum thereof at the aggregate of the euro equivalent of US$397,514.02 and £9,000, and disallowed the plaintiff’s claim for interest pursuant to s.22 of the Courts Act 1981 in circumstances where the case was not clear cut in respect of either liability or quantum and having regard to the plaintiff’s own failure to progress the proceedings with expedition.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the High Court awarded the sum of $397,514.02 together with the additional sum of £9,000 to the plaintiff in respect of the damage to the cable, but refused to award interest.

Virgin Media Wholesale Limited v The owners and all persons claiming an interest in The Lida Suzanna [2025] IEHC 493