THE COURTS Service has sought more than €500,000 in travel allowances on behalf of three judges involved in the Mahon tribunal for travel and subsistence claims over the past eight years.
Under travel and subsistence rules, the judges – who are paid a salary of €177,554 each – are entitled to payments for travelling to work where those journeys are further than six miles.
The three are Judge Alan Mahon, Judge Mary Faherty and Judge Gerald Keyes.
However, the Department of the Environment has refused to pay the outstanding amount and insists the service should have raised the matter with it years ago.
Last summer the service first sought to recoup travel claims by Judge Alan Mahon and Judge Mary Faherty from the department for 2007 and 2008 totalling €100,638 and 90 cent. The bulk of these claims related to Judge Mahon (€74,419). When officials queried the payments, the service told the department it was getting “no benefit” from the judges and should not have to make these payments.
After the department paid these claims, the service went on to seek travel and subsistence costs for all three judges dating back to 2002.
It estimated that the cost of travel claims between 2002 and 2008, excluding money already paid to the two judges last year, would be about €416,000. A further payment of some €100,000 would also be due for 2009, according to department records. A spokesman for the service yesterday said it was in “ongoing discussions” with the department in relation to the matter.
It is unclear if travel and subsistence claims include just mileage to and from work, or if they extend to general claims for meals and hotel accommodation. An internal department document describes the claims as “travel and subsistence in respect of journeys to work” and adds, “this department was unaware even that such expenses were paid”.
Neither the department nor the service could clarify this last night.
Circuit Court judges are typically entitled to travel and subsistence in accordance with rules used across the public service. These include set fees for accommodation and meals.
Last February, the department wrote to the service to say these outstanding amounts should have been raised with it years ago. Even if it was considered that the costs should be borne by the department, any previous spending was likely to be “indelible”, or unable to be altered, the department said.
A spokesman at the department said officials had had discussions with the service on the matter. It was considering a proposal that it would recoup from the service for travel and subsistence expenditure from 2010 on and, possibly, from 2009.
Established in 1997 to examine alleged planning irregularities, the tribunal was chaired by Mr Justice Feargus Flood until he retired in 2002. Its report has been delayed pending a Supreme Court appeal by developer Owen O’Callaghan.
