The High Court refused an application by Hazel Lawlor to stay the Quarryvale II public hearing of the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments, which was due to resume on 30 April 2007. The court also refused, in substance, the Tribunal’s application to set aside leave for judicial review, but held that Ms Lawlor could pursue only certain issues within the limits of her standing.
In a judgment delivered on 27 April 2007, Mr Justice O’Neill said Ms Lawlor had been granted representation before the Tribunal to defend the reputation of her late husband, Liam Lawlor, in the forthcoming module. That gave her a direct interest in challenging the standard of proof the Tribunal should apply to any serious misconduct findings about him. The judge said the general law did not otherwise provide a right to litigate grievances on behalf of a deceased person.
The judge held that her standing extended to matters arising from her prospective representation, not historical complaints about how the Tribunal had treated her husband. He ruled she could not pursue claims concerning allegations against her personally, her children, earlier procedural complaints made by her husband, or correction of a Tribunal record that had already been corrected before his death. She could pursue issues concerning access to material relevant to her representation and whether the Tribunal was required to provide or secure legal representation for her.
The Tribunal had refused an earlier request for advance payment of her legal costs, saying it had no legislative power to guarantee those costs at that stage. In considering whether the hearing should be paused while the judicial review proceeded, Justice O’Neill said existing authority supported the civil standard of proof—balance of probabilities—rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt for an inquiry or tribunal. He found that the arguments on the standard of proof, access to material and legal costs did not meet the threshold for interim relief.
The court was told that the Tribunal held no electronic recordings apart from a tape of an interview supplied by a solicitor. The judge also said it was unclear whether Ms Lawlor had exhausted the usual process for raising the material-access issue with the Tribunal.
Justice O’Neill said the balance of convenience strongly favoured allowing the inquiry to proceed, citing the interests of others waiting to answer allegations, the public interest in a timely inquiry and the risk that further delay would impair the inquiry. He also found the judicial review had not been brought promptly and that the delay was unexplained to his satisfaction.
The stay was refused. The application to set aside leave was refused in substance, except that leave was upheld only for the grounds the judge found Ms Lawlor had standing to pursue.