The High Court has refused an application by a boat operator for an interlocutory injunction that would have restored two permits allowing him to land passengers on Skellig Michael while his case proceeds to a full hearing.
In a judgment delivered on 5 May 2016, Mr Justice Tony O’Connor said the operator had not shown a strong case likely to succeed on the arguments advanced for urgent relief. He also found that damages would be an adequate remedy if the operator succeeds at the plenary hearing.
The operator runs three passenger boats from Ballinskelligs, County Kerry. The two permits at issue allowed one landing a day, with no more than 12 passengers, on two boats during the period from mid-May to mid-September. The defendants revoked the permits by letter on 21 January 2016 and said a public competition would be held for them.
The operator argued that he had not been given an opportunity to address the reasons for revocation, including the defendants’ reference to his guilty pleas at Cahirciveen District Court in September 2015. Those pleas concerned going to sea when it was dangerous for passengers, operating without an appropriate licence, and operating a vessel without a certified master. The judgment records that the defendants cited visitor safety and potential liability as the basis for refusing renewal.
The judge said the operator had not established a strong case based on a substantive legitimate expectation or a legal right to land passengers on the island. He did, however, note that the operator could pursue at the full hearing his claim concerning fair and transparent procedures, while finding he had not shown a strong case likely to succeed on that claim for purposes of the injunction application.
The court said that, if successful at trial, the operator could seek lost profits from trips he would have run during the 2016 season. It also said visitor safety outweighed any reputational damage that might be established at trial.
During the hearing, the defendants undertook not to issue replacement permits before the proceedings are determined at a plenary hearing. The court refused the requested interlocutory relief and said it would hear counsel on directions for trial. The decision concerns interim relief; the underlying claims remain for the plenary hearing.