Steve Gibson has attacked the decision to take PD Ports to court, claiming a settlement could have been reached to “good advantage” for the South Tees Development Corporation.

The chairman of Middlesbrough Football Club and fellow former STDC board member Paul Booth both share the view that a settlement offer, made by PD Ports, should have been accepted.

The legal case was launched in 2021 by the publicly-owned STDC – run by the Tees Valley Combined Authority with mayor Ben Houchen at its head – over rights of access on the south bank of the River Tees.

The offer to settle was made by the port operator in September last year, two weeks before the trial, however this was rejected. Mr Gibson said: “It should have been settled and it could have been settled to good advantage.”

He also spoke openly about a meeting in March 2021 between PD Ports and representatives of the STDC, including Mr Gibson who was vice chair of the board at the time. According to reports, which Mr Gibson does not deny, he hurled abuse and made threats towards PD Ports bosses.

He said it was a “without prejudice” meeting and was unaware it was being recorded. Negotiations had been left to himself and Mr Booth, he said, and his “frustration” was growing at PD Ports.

“I had been nice and got nowhere, been nice and got nowhere and been nice and got nowhere,” he told the Local Democracy Reporting Service. “I thought I’m going to have to stir this.

“That recording only says what I said, it doesn’t tell the story of what sparked it. It simply makes me look like I’m on a rant but I’m actually responding to the situation and the circumstance. It’s also an negotiation tactic to be unpredictable.

“At that point I was more or less leading the negotiation and I would never, ever have let that get to court. In a negotiation the last thing you want is to end up in a court.

“My objective was to do the best possible deal I could for the Tees Valley and that’s why I acted that way. What I didn’t expect was to be recorded and then that recording to be passed on.”

As reported, Mr Gibson and fellow former STDC board member Paul Booth have also taken aim at Lord Houchen over the deal which handed 90 per cent of the shares in the Teeswork site to private partners. They have questioned several decisions which they say were detrimental to people in the Tees Valley, including the decision to take court action against the port operator.

Following a costly six-week trial, the judge Mr Justice Rajah found PD Ports had established six of its access claims over three key routes on the site while four claims ruled in STDC’s favour. At a subsequent High Court hearing to address costs, the judge said: “On the face of the issues at trial, the defendant has clearly won by establishing a right to emergency access and egress; the rights to which the claimants and third parties thought carried a ransom value.

“It has also established other rights of access to South Gare and rights of access to Redcar Quay which the claimant and third party have sought a declaration that the defendant did not have.” The judge said, in principle, PD Ports should receive 80 per cent of costs incurred prior to that offer, and 100 per cent of its costs thereafter.

Teesworks has now submitted papers, appealing against parts of the judgement which they believe were “wrongly applied”. The STDC confirmed it has no plans to appeal.

Mr Justice Rajah said, in principle, PD Ports should receive 80 per cent of costs incurred prior to September 21 last year, when the offer to settle by the port operator was rejected “out of hand”, and 100 per cent of its costs thereafter. PD Ports previously said figures are still be finalised, however, their estimated costs at the end of the trial stood at £2.73m.

Mr Booth, who gave evidence at the court case, also spoke of his belief that the costly trial could have been avoided. “I went as a witness and I did not know about the offer of a settlement. Before I went into the witness box I I did not know that.

“Had I known what the terms of the settlement were I might have tried to persuade somebody that it was a good idea and to at least give it some serious consideration. I was never offered that opportunity because, to be fair, I was no longer associated with them.”

Mr Booth and Mr Gibson were both asked to step down from the STDC board in June 2021. Mr Gibson said, had he stayed on the board, he would not have let it get to court.

Justice Rajah found PD Ports had established a prescriptive right of way along a riverside route which connects PD Port’s land by the highway at Smith’s Dock Road to the Tees Dock Road on the firm’s land at Teesport, for emergency access and egress from Teesport for all vehicles when the Tees Dock Road is impassable. Mr Booth said due diligence had been carried out on the land, adding: “I was as satisfied as I could be that there was no right of access for commercial vehicles.

“The judgement said PD Ports did establish a right of access across that land, however not for commercial vehicles. It said they do have a right of access in the case of emergencies but on that point, if there was a terrorist attack, a fire or people’s lives were in danger, there was never any question that access would have been granted for any route on to PD Ports but I differentiate between an emergency and business disruption.”

Mr Booth said he believes if the court had been dealing with that single issue, the claimants would have won. “All the points that were dealt in… I’m not sure why they were there.

“I commented on the one that I knew I was involved in. All of these little things got dealt because of a bad judgement call and it muddied the waters,” he said.

Following the costs hearing, Teesworks released a statement, revealing its intention to appeal the judgement made in the case while a spokesperson for STDC said they will not.

"Regarding Mr Gibson’s and Mr Booth’s comments, a spokesperson for Teesworks said they would not be making any further comments on the case until the completion of the Court of Appeal process but confirmed the appeal application has been submitted.

The STDC declined to comment on Mr Gibson and Mr Booth’s comments. Following the trial a spokesperson said their focus had been “to clarify PDT’s rights to accommodate them and prevent hindrance to future economic development”, adding: “STDC made extensive effort to avoid legal action but the lack of documentary evidence supporting PDT’s claim left no option other than to seek a legal determination.”

Lord Houchen previously said several ongoing projects would not have been possible had all of the claims made by PD Ports been successful. “You have the SeAH [wind turbine] site, if they [PD Ports] had those rights, it would not be allowed to be built, we would not be able to develop the rest of the South Bank area as well.

“You would not be able to deliver NZT [Net Zero Teesside, a carbon capture and storage scheme] and the BP Hydrogen project, for example. That’s what they were saying, they never provided any evidence as such, which is why we went to the court to ask for clarity over rights they actually have.

“PD Ports were in effect trying to stop any development on this site going forward because they would have legal rights over pretty much every piece of land, which would mean no jobs or investment. The judge has said the rights of access they have don’t impact on any developments at the site from an STDC point of view.”

Michael McConnell, group property director at Pd Ports, said they were forced into “unnecessary” court action which “was not of our choosing”.

Recommended reading: 

Don't miss out on the latest news and stories. Subscribe to the The Northern Echo for just £5 for 5 months. Click here

The Northern Echo:

He added: “The judgment underlines that the decision by South Tees Development Corporation and Teesworks decision to press ahead with legal action – despite the weight of evidence in PD Ports’ favour and our repeated offers of a flexible solution to entirely accommodate their development needs – was entirely unnecessary.

“Contrary to statements made at aSTDC board meeting, PD Ports made numerous attempts to work with STDC and Teesworks prior to the court action and repeatedly offered, at nil cost, the ability to have our historic prescriptive rights of access across STDC land realigned in order to enable any proposed commercial development.

“That STDC, a public body with responsibility for the economic regeneration of Teesside, would choose to persist with legal action, backed by Teesworks Limited, against PD Ports – the largest private employer and biggest driver of inward investment in the region which should be viewed as a strategic partner – is disappointing and frustrating.”