Teesworks Ltd refused appeal against most of PD Ports ruling

The company, along with the publicly-owned South Tees Development Corporation run by Tees Valley Combined Authority (TVCA) with mayor Ben Houchen at its head, clashed in court with PD Ports over access to land across the Teesworks redevelopment site.

STDC brought the case, maintaining the port operator had no rights of way across its own land, but PD Ports won six claims after it defended access rights to its holdings on the south bank of the river Tees.

PD Ports private property sign (Image: LDR)

After a multi-million-pound litigation, a judge said PD Ports was “clearly the successful party” after it established six of its access claims over three key routes. Mr Justice Rajah also ruled STDC and Teesworks had to pay most of PD Ports’ costs, estimated at £2.73m at the end of the six-week trial.

Teesworks said afterwards it intended to appeal the case judgment while STDC said it would not. Now it has been revealed the Court of Appeal has largely turned down an appeal request.

In a letter to tenants and licensees around the South Gare, PD Ports group property director Michael McConnell said: “The Court of Appeal has now made its decision on whether it would grant Teesworks permission to appeal the various decisions of the High Court. Other than one limited aspect, the decision of the Court of Appeal was that permission to appeal has been refused.”

The Teesworks industrial site, near Redcar, which was previously home to the SSI steel plant (Image: TVCA)

The letter reveals Teesworks is still allowed to appeal on the issue of pedestrian access. It says: “The limited aspect in which permission has been granted for Teesworks to potentially appeal is in respect of the High Court ruling on pedestrian access along South Gare Road.

“This merely means the Court of Appeal may consider an appeal on the issue of pedestrian access only. There can be no appeal on any of the other rulings of the High Court.”

Mr McConnell quoted the court as saying: “It is unclear what practical purpose this narrow ground may have and accordingly, whether it is appropriate that an appeal be heard in this regard.” He added: “We appreciate this is a complex saga, but in summary the High Court decision in confirming rights to the three areas and the award of costs has been upheld.

“The only matter which may be the subject of an appeal is in relation to rights to walk along South Gare Road… It is not clear what practical purpose there would be in Teesworks appealing against the High Court ruling on pedestrian access. We would reiterate to implement the High Court action seeking a declaration that there was no rights of access with STDC. PD Teesport was merely the defendant in this action.

“The decision to ask the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal the rulings of the High Court was with Teesworks, as will be any decision to seek to overturn the High Court ruling on pedestrian rights to South Gare. Hopefully therefore common sense will now prevail and that will be an end to the matter.”

Also in the letter, Mr McConnell referred to STDC documentation saying if it had been successful in the court case, Teesworks Ltd would have been entitled up to half of any sum paid by PD Ports up to £54m.

Mr McConnell added: “The High Court action was therefore an unsuccessful attempt by the STDC to get a declaration that rights of access did not exist, and then charge to grant such rights with any potential proceeds being shared with private partners who would also receive a consultancy fee.”

Teesworks Ltd has been asked what its current position is, what appeal – if any – it intended to make against the High Court judgement, and if so, what the grounds and reasoning were and how it was justified in terms of public spending. It has declined to comment.

A spokesperson for STDC said it had paid no money to DCS Industrial for consultancy fees relating to PD Ports and it was not involved in the appeal. PD Ports confirmed the letter was legitimate and an accurate reflection of its current position, and did not comment further.