Developer facing legal bill of over €2m

Cork property developer Owen O'Callaghan is facing a legal bill of more than €2 million arising from his unsuccessful challenge to the Mahon tribunal's further inquiring into or making any findings on allegations made against him by developer Tom Gilmartin.

Mr O'Callaghan is to appeal to the Supreme Court against the High Court's refusal last week to prevent the Mahon tribunal from carrying out those further inquiries in its Quarryvale Two module.

Counsel for the tribunal agreed at the High Court yesterday not to proceed with those inquiries before next week when the case will be mentioned before the Supreme Court.

It is expected that Mr O'Callaghan's lawyers will then seek to further stay the inquiries pending the outcome of the appeal.

Also yesterday, Mr Justice Thomas Smyth made orders requiring Mr O'Callaghan to pay the costs of his unsuccessful action against the tribunal but placed a stay on the costs orders to October 27th. The High Court hearing ran for a number of weeks with legal costs expected to exceed €2 million.

The costs order follows the judge's dismissal last week on all grounds the challenge brought by Mr O'Callaghan; by John Deane, a solicitor and a partner in O'Callaghan Properties; by Riga Ltd of Lavitt's Quay, Cork, and by Barkhill Ltd, the company which developed the Liffey Valley shopping centre in Dublin.

Mr O'Callaghan had claimed Mr Gilmartin has made "entirely untrue" allegations in private to the tribunal, including claims that Mr O'Callaghan had made offshore payments to senior politicians. He claimed those allegations were never mentioned in evidence by Mr Gilmartin at the tribunal's public sessions and were concealed by the tribunal.

He also claimed the tribunal was biased towards him and in favour of Mr Gilmartin in relation to its treatment of Mr Gilmartin's evidence in the Quarryvale One module.

Mr Justice Smyth rejected all of those claims. He noted the applicants contended that Mr Gilmartin had on many previous occasions made statements which were "glaringly and significantly inconsistent" with statements given by him in evidence.

Even if that was correct, it was the prerogative of cross-examining counsel to exploit any such inconsistency, he said. The applicants also contended that Mr Gilmartin had made false allegations against them, the judge said.

If that was correct, their counsel now had the opportunity to satisfy the tribunal of such.

He was satisfied, following court decisions requiring the tribunal to disclose certain documents to Mr O'Callaghan and to adhere to certain procedures, that the tribunal had adapted its policies and was anxious that Mr O'Callaghan and other parties be given the opportunity for a full and effective cross-examination of Mr Gilmartin.

While most of the public hearings connected with the Quarryvale One module may be complete, it was clearly the tribunal's intention to resume hearings to complete outstanding issues, he said. It was incumbent on the tribunal to recall Mr Gilmartin so as to allow the applicants, who now had all the necessary documents, to exercise the effective cross-examination of Mr Gilmartin which they claimed to have been denied in the past.

The evidence in Quarryvale One is not yet complete and that in Quarryvale Two not begun, the judge said.

It would be premature for the court to inhibit the tribunal from discharging its task to hear the evidence.

Mr Justice Smyth also rejected claims that Mr Gilmartin was accorded special or preferential status by the tribunal.