The Supreme Court has ruled that the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments had no jurisdiction to hold a public hearing into the Fitzwilton £30,000 payment. It allowed an appeal by Fitzwilton Limited, Goulding Limited and Rennicks Sign Manufacturing against the High Court’s refusal of their judicial review application.
The appeal concerned whether a document dated 28 April 2005 complied with paragraph J(2) of the tribunal’s amended terms of reference. That provision required the tribunal, by 1 May 2005, to consider and decide which additional matters should proceed to a public hearing, record the decision in writing and notify affected parties.
The companies’ application concerned a £30,000 political contribution made in June 1989. Their affidavit said the Fitzwilton Group intended the full sum for Fianna Fáil and made the payment via then minister Ray Burke in the form of a “pick-me-up”. It also said the companies later learned that the party had not received all the money. Those details were presented as the applicants’ evidence, not findings made in this appeal.
The tribunal maintained that its 28 April document recorded the required decision. The High Court agreed and refused judicial review. On appeal, the companies argued that the document deferred the decision about whether to hold a public hearing. The tribunal argued that it had complied.
The Supreme Court held that the document’s wording did not record a decision to proceed to a public hearing. It said the statement that the tribunal “may decide” to hold such a hearing pointed to a possible future decision. The Court treated the required decision under J(2) as separate from the tribunal’s later discretion under paragraph J(6). Because the decision had not been made and recorded by the deadline, the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the additional matter.
The Court allowed the appeal and declared that the tribunal had failed to comply with J(2) and had no jurisdiction to hold a public hearing on the Fitzwilton £30,000 module. It did not grant certiorari, saying there was no decision to quash, or an order of prohibition, which it considered unnecessary after declaring the lack of jurisdiction. The ruling addressed the tribunal’s authority to hold that hearing; it did not determine the underlying payment allegations.