The High Court refused property developer Owen O’Callaghan’s application to quash findings made against him in the Mahon Tribunal’s final report, ruling that he had an opportunity to answer the matters under inquiry and was not entitled to see draft findings before publication.
Mr Justice Hedigan delivered judgment on 16 May 2012. The judicial review concerned findings in the tribunal’s report about payments connected with the Quarryvale development, now known as Liffey Valley. O’Callaghan sought orders quashing the findings, requiring their deletion from the report, and declaring that they had been made in breach of fair procedures.
The judgment records that the tribunal’s report, published on 22 March 2012, found O’Callaghan corrupt and made findings concerning corrupt payments through an intermediary. O’Callaghan denied wrongdoing. He argued that the tribunal had not put the allegations or the basis for the findings to him, that the definition of corruption had been expanded without notice, and that he should have received draft findings so he could respond.
The tribunal’s representatives argued that the inquiry had made clear it was examining payments to councillors and whether they were corrupt. They said the payments underlying the report’s findings had been covered in the inquiry and that O’Callaghan had been able to address them in evidence and written submissions. They also relied on an earlier High Court decision rejecting a request for advance notice of provisional findings.
Hedigan said the challenge did not contest the tribunal’s findings on their merits. He concluded that there were no new allegations in the report that O’Callaghan had not had an opportunity to answer. The judgment points to correspondence, the tribunal’s opening statement, evidence and written submissions as showing that he knew the payments were being investigated for possible corruption and could explain or dispute them.
The judge also rejected the challenge to the corruption definition. He said it was too late to contest the definition set out in 1998, and found that the later discussion in the report did not introduce matters of which O’Callaghan lacked notice or an opportunity to respond.
On draft findings, Hedigan adopted the reasoning of an earlier High Court decision, which had found no requirement for a public inquiry to provide provisional findings for comment. He refused the reliefs sought. The ruling addressed the judicial review application; it did not itself make a new finding about whether the payments were corrupt.