A company that has provided the ferry between the mainland and Inishturk Island, Co Mayo, for the last 10 years has brought a High Court challenge to the awarding of a €1.7 million contract for the service to a rival firm.
The family-run O’Malley Ferries (Clare Island) Ltd, which also provides a service to Clare Island, lost out to Clare Island Ferry and Clew Bay Cruises Ltd when bids for a new five-year ferry contract were advertised last year by the Minister for Rural and Community Development.
O’Malley Ferries has brought High Court proceedings claiming the Minister infringed EU procurement regulations in the way the tenders were evaluated.
It is claimed there was a failure to give reasons for the decision and to comply with requirements of non-discrimination, transparency, equal treatment and proportionality.
The great Guinness shortage has lessons for Diageo
Ireland has won the corporation tax game for now, but will that last?
Corkman leading €11bn development of Battersea Power Station in London: ‘We’ve created a place to live, work and play’
Elf doors, carriage rides and boat cruises: Christmas in Ireland’s five-star hotels
The firm’s managing director, Charles O’Malley, says the awarding of the contract to the rival firm will cause his company significant harm. The Inishturk to Roonagh pier route accounts for some 60 per cent of his company’s revenue and may result in “significant redundancies” among the company’s nine employees, he said.
The Minister opposes the challenge.
On Monday, the Minister applied to have the case admitted to the fast-track Commercial Court because the matter was urgent due to the fact the current contract is due to expire on June 7th.
Jonathan Newman SC, for the Minister, said there are 51 inhabitants of Inishturk and they cannot be cut off from the mainland. The alternatives facing the Minister were that an emergency service would have to be put in place or there could be an early hearing of the case, which could be dealt with in two days, he said.
Joe Jeffers SC, for O’Malley Ferries, said that while he was neither consenting nor objecting to the admission of the case to the fast-track court, there were some peculiarities about the case, including that it took two months for the Minister to deliver a statement of opposition to the challenge.
Mr Jeffers also did not accept the Minister’s contention that it was not possible to extend the existing contract as there can be any number of extensions by agreement between the parties.
Mr Justice Denis McDonald said he was unimpressed at the “leisurely” way in which the Minister met the case up to now, but he could see the urgency in it being heard soon.
He put it in for hearing at the end of next month but warned there could be no guarantee that a judgment would be delivered before June 7th.
