The High Court has quashed a 2011 decision by the Planning Tribunal chairman refusing to reconsider Oliver Barry’s application for costs, and sent the request back to the Tribunal for reconsideration. The court did not find that Barry is entitled to costs or that he must receive a rehearing.
Barry had sought €611,000 for legal costs incurred while appearing before the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments. In 2004, the Tribunal chairman refused his application, relying on findings in the Tribunal’s Second Interim Report that Barry had obstructed and hindered its work. Barry did not challenge that ruling at the time.
The report had found that a £35,000 payment Barry made to then Minister for Communications Ray Burke in 1989 was a bribe intended to secure action in Century Radio’s interests. Barry maintained that it was an ordinary political contribution. He does not accept the Tribunal’s corruption finding, but the High Court recorded that he was not seeking to challenge it in these proceedings.
After the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in *Murphy v Flood*, Barry asked the Tribunal to review the refusal of costs. The Supreme Court had held that the Tribunal lacked power to make findings of obstruction and hindrance, which were criminal offences, and had erred by relying on such findings when refusing costs. The Tribunal chairman declined to revisit Barry’s ruling, citing the nearly six-year delay and related legal principles.
Justice Iseult O’Malley held that Barry had delayed in an “inordinate and inexcusable” way in challenging the 2004 ruling. His explanations, including financial difficulty, legal advice that his case was weak and concern about publicity, were not sufficiently supported. The court refused the reliefs aimed at reopening that original ruling, saying Barry had chosen not to litigate at the time and could not rely on the later Supreme Court decision to overcome the delay.
The court treated the separate 2011 refusal differently. It found that the chairman’s reasons largely addressed whether the court could grant relief despite the delay, rather than whether the Tribunal itself could reconsider its earlier administrative costs decision. The reasons did not properly address the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to revisit that decision after the Supreme Court ruling.
The High Court therefore quashed the 2011 refusal and remitted Barry’s request to the Tribunal for reconsideration. That limited order leaves the outcome of the request open.