The High Court has refused Island Ferries Teoranta’s application for judicial review of Galway County Council’s €0.80 charge for each passenger disembarking at Kilronan Harbour on Inis Mór. The company had sought to have the charge quashed, arguing that it was unlawful, discriminatory and disproportionate.
The charge was included in Council bye-laws adopted on 24 October 2011 and took effect on 1 January 2012. It applied per passenger entry, with a €5 annual rate for passengers using multiple journey tickets for five or more return journeys. The ferry operator had to provide monthly evidence of those ticket sales. The proceedings were heard in the High Court’s Competition List on affidavits and expert reports, with witnesses cross-examined.
Island Ferries said the charge would add more than €100,000 to its annual operating costs if passenger numbers remained at recent levels. It argued that it made limited use of harbour facilities and that the Council had left other significant harbour users, including the cargo operator, without comparable charges. It also claimed the fee abused the Council’s dominant position and infringed the company’s constitutional property and business rights.
The Council’s bye-laws followed a €48.5 million harbour redevelopment, funded by central government. The judgment described the works as improving safety and facilities, including through a new cargo berth, a breakwater and dredging. Council officials had estimated annual operating costs of €150,000 to €200,000. The court said the Council was entitled to weigh the interests of the island community and its wider statutory responsibilities when setting charges.
Justice Cooke treated the fee as a charge on individual passengers, collected through ferry operators, rather than an operating cost that Island Ferries had to bear in full. The company could decide whether to pass it on to customers. The court found that €0.80 per passenger was not manifestly unfair, disproportionate or unreasonable, and that the different treatment of passenger traffic and cargo was not arbitrary in light of the Council’s stated concerns about costs to island residents and businesses.
The court also rejected the competition and constitutional grounds. It accepted that the Council occupied a dominant position in providing harbour services, but found objective justification for the charge and no abuse of that position. It concluded that the fee was not an unjust attack on the company’s property or business rights.
The court refused the reliefs sought. It did not quash Charge No. 12. The judgment concerned the legality of the bye-law; it did not determine every disputed question raised about the harbour’s costs, the value of services to the ferry operator or the company’s finances.