A High Court judge has said he will decide this week whether or not to lift a suspension on boating permits needed to ferry people to and from Skellig Michael, saying “people’s livelihoods are at stake”.
The permits have not been issued while legal proceedings are before the courts in the form of a judicial review of the tendering process.
At the High Court on Tuesday, Mr Justice Garrett Simons said he was “staggered” by the assertion by lawyers for the Office of Public Works (OPW) that it would need six months to prepare the case.
He ordered the case would be heard next month and would get “top priority”.
‘A hand slap to America’s face’: Iran’s Supreme Leader makes first public appearance since US bombs
Irishman Morgan McSweeney: the softly-spoken chief of staff to Keir Starmer now facing questions
Second big payday for Barry Connolly of Irish-founded Fulfil as Hershey buys him out in North America
Malachy Clerkin: Mayo’s decision to oust Kevin McStay was fair enough but the way they did it was foul
The granting of permits to successful applicants is on hold pending a judicial review taken against the OPW by two companies who were unsuccessful in their applications to the government body for the 2025 season, which runs from May to the end of September.
The OPW had run a competition in late 2024 to award 15 boating permits for summer 2025 to serve the Co Kerry island, which was chosen as a film location for the Star Wars movies The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi.
The OPW has said that under Irish and EU law it was precluded from issuing permits for the 2025 summer season until legal proceedings were resolved.
Skellig Michael Boat Trips and Atlantic Endeavour Limited both dispute the process underpinning the granting of the licences, alleging it to be “deficient” and “without transparency”. They have been granted permission for the challenge.
David Dodd, for the plaintiffs, told Mr Justice Simons nobody wanted the boats not to visit the island.
He said permits could be granted by the court in an interim fashion and the issuing of a one-season permit was not a “contract” as contended by the OPW.
Mr Dodd said he was resisting a suggested “five-year framework” on the OPW’s granting of the permits as part of a contract, but the plaintiffs also wanted to see the boats out.
He said the OPW in applying to the court to have the suspension lifted had referred to a “contract” having to be in place for the boats to take to sea.
There should be no such “contract” and permits issued were akin to planning permission or a gun permit being granted, neither or which, he said, were “contracts” nor necessitated frameworks.
A permit is a statutory one without an offer or an acceptance as found in a contract, he said. Whether or not this granting amounted to a “contract” was a matter for the full hearing of the main case, Mr Dodd said.
“We are happy, however, for the suspension to be lifted,” he said.
Mr Justice Simons asked Andrew Beck SC, for the OPW, how it was looking for six months to prepare for this “most straightforward case of competition for licences”.
Mr Beck said there was discovery of documents needed, amendments to make and a possible issue around cross-examination.
The judge said he was “staggered” the case would take up to six months to get on.
Mr Justice Simons said he would rule on Thursday whether or not he would lift the suspension of the permits. He adjourned the main hearing to July 21st.
