The High Court has rejected a challenge by Joseph Murphy, Frank Reynolds and Joseph Murphy Structural Engineers Ltd to findings made against them by the Planning Tribunal and to its refusal to award them costs.
The dispute arose from the tribunal’s investigation into planning matters and payments. Its second interim report, published in September 2002, found that Murphy and Reynolds had obstructed or hindered the inquiry in several respects, including by giving accounts which the tribunal found untruthful about payments involving Ray Burke and dealings with Michael Bailey and James Gogarty.
A third interim report, published in January 2004, made further findings concerning payments to former Dublin official George Redmond.
Mr Justice T.C. Smyth held that the applicants had waited too long to challenge the findings in the second report. Murphy had described himself as devastated by those findings and had legal advice, but no proceedings were brought for about 19 months. The court held that the public was entitled to treat that part of the tribunal’s work as concluded.
The challenge to the third report was allowed to be considered, but failed on its merits. The judge held that the tribunal was entitled to assess whether witnesses had cooperated with, hindered or obstructed its work. Such findings were factual conclusions made on the civil standard of proof and did not amount to a criminal conviction or an unconstitutional exercise of judicial power.
The court also upheld the tribunal’s November 2004 refusal to award the applicants their costs. It found that amended legislation expressly allowed the tribunal to consider its findings, non-cooperation, obstruction and other relevant circumstances when deciding costs.
The court did not decide the applicants’ broader constitutional challenge to the costs legislation. It held that issue was either unnecessary, premature or one in which they lacked standing.