Judgment: 2001-12-12 · Court archive

Supreme Court dismisses Liam Lawlor appeal over contempt in planning tribunal case

Supreme Court ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Liam Lawlor
  • Mr Justice Fennelly
  • Larry Goodman
What

Supreme Court dismisses Liam Lawlor appeal over contempt in planning tribunal case

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Coolamber, Lucan
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Mr Justice Fennelly said one aspect of the case concerning lands at Coolamber, Lucan, was enough by itself to justify dismissal of the appeal. Lawlor had already been found in contempt, sentenced to three months' imprisonment, served one week and been ordered to make further discovery of documents.

The Supreme Court has dismissed Liam Lawlor's appeal against further punishment for contempt arising from his dealings with the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments.

Mr Justice Fennelly said one aspect of the case concerning lands at Coolamber, Lucan, was enough by itself to justify dismissal of the appeal. Lawlor had already been found in contempt, sentenced to three months' imprisonment, served one week and been ordered to make further discovery of documents.

The dispute centred on Lawlor's description of his involvement in the acquisition of 55 acres at Coolamber. In an affidavit sworn on July 17, 2001, he said he had not been involved in the purchase or ownership of the lands and had held no interest in them before or after their acquisition. He acknowledged only recommending the property to businessman Larry Goodman.

Further material was then put before the court in an affidavit from the tribunal. It included memoranda concerning financing, references to Lawlor's initials, documents relating to companies involved in the purchase, and a later memorandum said to have been prepared by Lawlor himself.

In a further affidavit on July 20, Lawlor gave a substantially fuller account. He said he had discussed the lands and financing with Goodman, that a tender was submitted and succeeded, and that Goodman provided money used in the transaction. He also acknowledged discussions about possible shareholdings in the company owning the lands.

Fennelly J said the later affidavit meant Lawlor's earlier statement of non-involvement was not merely concise but untrue. He found that, at the least, Lawlor had been actively concerned in the transaction.

The judge said that failure to respect the court order was particularly serious given the existing contempt finding, imprisonment and further discovery order. He concluded that this aspect alone justified the additional imprisonment and fine imposed by the High Court, and agreed that the appeal should be dismissed.

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