Court action on scope of Flood tribunal opens

A challenge by a Dublin estate agent and auctioneer, Mr John Finnegan, to what he describes as an "undue exercise of power" by…

A challenge by a Dublin estate agent and auctioneer, Mr John Finnegan, to what he describes as an "undue exercise of power" by the Flood tribunal, began yesterday at the High Court.

Mr Finnegan, of Seapoint House, Seapoint Avenue, Monkstown, is asking the court to declare that the tribunal would exceed its powers if it inquired into matters other than "the authorisation of the payment to Mr Raphael Burke and Canio Ltd".

He got leave earlier this month to seek a number of orders against the tribunal where he faced questions about the affairs of former government minister Mr Ray Burke.

He is asking the court to prohibit any examination of his business affairs or accounts which are "not the subject of payments to Mr Raphael Burke" or his companies, except for the purpose of segregating such payments as outside the scope of the tribunal.

READ MORE

He also wants an order prohibiting any inquiry into "alleged wrongful conduct" on his part, complained of by the tribunal. Mr Finnegan says he got no notice of such a matter.

Mr Finnegan is also asking for a declaration that the tribunal's procedures have failed to protect his constitutional rights as a witness at the hearing.

Mr Jack Fitzgerald SC, for Mr Finnegan, said his client's good name and character had been permanently damaged by the conduct of the tribunal.

The tribunal, in so far as it affected the good name of his client, was "a large and massive locomotion which has come off the rails".

At the heart of this case was the status of the tribunal's counsel who worked both privately and publicly. There was also the question of the relationship between the tribunal's lawyers and the tribunal chairman.

Mr Fitzgerald said he would address two matters which had given rise to Mr Finnegan's litigation - the "Canio Ltd matter" and "the lands at Monkstown".

There had to be fairness regarding the procedures adopted by the tribunal. If something was gone through, and there was an explanation from Mr Finnegan's point of view which was favourable to him, it should be put to a witness as soon as possible, and not be left to drag on, so an "unfavourable spin" was put on it.

Mr Fitzgerald said he was referring to "allegations" by the tribunal chairman and tribunal counsel in examining and attempting to get a witness, Mr Tom Brennan, to say Mr John Finnegan acted on both sides and took money from both sides.

For a professional estate agent, it was hard to imagine a more serious allegation. It was awe-inspiring to see counsel attempt to get a witness to say something he did not want to say about a man whose involvement in the tribunal had not yet arisen, Mr Fitzgerald said.

The hearing before Mr Justice Kearns continues today.