The Supreme Court has allowed an Oireachtas inquiry into the Mini-CTC railway signalling project to continue while a judicial review challenge brought by the widow of former CIE chief executive Michael McDonnell remains before the High Court.
Chief Justice Ronan Keane delivered judgment on October 31, 2001, dismissing Noreen McDonnell's appeal against an earlier High Court decision which had lifted a stay on the subcommittee's proceedings.
Mrs McDonnell had been granted representation at the inquiry because she and her children were concerned that evidence might affect her late husband's reputation. She subsequently obtained leave for judicial review, raising complaints including the refusal to fund her legal representation, restrictions on the timing of cross-examination, alleged bias or prejudgment by committee members, inadequate provision of documents and conditions imposed on an proposed opening statement.
The proceedings concerned an Oireachtas subcommittee investigating the Mini-CTC signalling project and a separate CIE telecommunications project involving Esat. The signalling contract, initially worth £14 million, had encountered significant difficulties, with 1999 assessments indicating a possible final cost of about £40 million.
Keane CJ said the Supreme Court was not deciding the merits of Mrs McDonnell's judicial review claims. The immediate question was whether the inquiry should remain halted pending their determination.
He found that the balance of convenience favoured lifting the stay. The inquiry concerned the use of substantial public funds, its evidence-gathering stage was almost complete, and a prolonged delay created a real risk that the work would not be completed before the dissolution of the Dáil.
The Chief Justice also noted that the subcommittee had undertaken not to publish its report until the judicial review proceedings were finally determined. Mrs McDonnell had legal representation and could cross-examine witnesses whose evidence might damage the interests she sought to protect.
Allegations of bias, entitlement to legal costs and the adequacy of the inquiry's procedures remained open for determination by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that none justified stopping the inquiry in the meantime and affirmed the High Court order discharging the stay.