Judgment: 2006-02-16 · Court archive

Supreme Court majority rejects challenge to Moriarty Tribunal’s Doncaster inquiry

The Court dismissed Denis O’Brien’s appeal against refusal of judicial review. Justice Hardiman dissented, saying the Tribunal’s terms did not cover the later Doncaster Rovers transaction.

The Supreme Court ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Denis O’Brien (Appellant)
  • Michael Lowry
What

The Court dismissed Denis O’Brien’s appeal against refusal of judicial review. Justice Hardiman dissented, saying the Tribunal’s terms did not cover the later Doncaster Rovers transaction.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Doncaster Rovers Football Club
  • Doncaster
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Hardiman J considered whether the inquiry fell within the Tribunal’s terms. He concluded that the terms covered payments made, not an intention, offer or attempt to pay, and that the Houses of the Oireachtas—not the Tribunal or the courts—would decide whether to expand the remit. He would have allowed the appeal on that ground and did not address the second ground.

The Supreme Court dismissed Denis O’Brien’s appeal over the Moriarty Tribunal’s proposed public inquiry into the acquisition of Doncaster Rovers Football Club. The judgment delivered by Mr Justice Hardiman on 16 February 2006 records the Court’s decision; Hardiman J dissented and would have granted relief on the first ground of appeal.

O’Brien had challenged the Tribunal’s decision to proceed to public hearings on the Doncaster Rovers module. The High Court refused his application for certiorari on 6 October 2005. The Supreme Court had granted him leave to seek judicial review on two grounds: whether the Tribunal’s terms allowed it to investigate transactions after its establishment that might give rise to payments to former minister Michael Lowry; and whether the Tribunal had sufficient evidence, when it decided on 27 May 2004 to proceed, to justify a full public inquiry into Lowry’s alleged involvement.

The Tribunal was established in September 1997 to investigate specified matters, including whether substantial payments were made to Lowry in circumstances connected with his public office. The Doncaster transaction post-dated the Tribunal’s establishment. The judgment says no evidence was alleged to show that the transaction existed when the Tribunal was set up, and no payment to Lowry linked to it was asserted at the appeal. Tribunal counsel described a “suggestive series of events suggesting an intention to make a payment”.

Hardiman J considered whether the inquiry fell within the Tribunal’s terms. He concluded that the terms covered payments made, not an intention, offer or attempt to pay, and that the Houses of the Oireachtas—not the Tribunal or the courts—would decide whether to expand the remit. He would have allowed the appeal on that ground and did not address the second ground.

That was the dissent. The judgment records that the appeal was dismissed by the Court, leaving the High Court’s refusal of relief in place. The source excerpt does not include the majority’s full reasoning or a separate order beyond that outcome.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review