A lawyer for Wicklow County Council yesterday described evidence given by an elected county councillor in a defamation action against the local authority as being “so unbelievable as to be incapable of being true”.
The case centres on allegations by two council members that they were defamed by the county manager, Eddie Sheehy, in a row over the council’s purchase of a €3 million housing site at Charlesland, near Greystones.
Councillors Barry Nevin and Thomas Cullen told Wicklow Circuit Court they – as well as councillor James O’Shaughnessy – had concerns about buying the site in 2011 because of allegations it was land-locked, prone to flooding, and that there was a dispute over title.
But, they said, county management had already conferred a compulsory purchase order and the legal advice was that the deal must go ahead. They also claim management was aware of “a second valuation” of the site amounting to €697,000.
The Minister for the Environment appointed Seamus Woulfe SC to investigate the deal. He found “almost all” the concerns were “not well founded or are misconceived”.
A press release was then issued by the county manager in which he claimed the complaint had caused a delay in the land deal, which, together with the investigation, had cost the council €200,000.
Mr Cullen yesterday said the press release contained “quite devastating” allegations about his fitness for public office and that he and the other councillors had effectively “wasted public funds”.
Luan O’Braonain SC for the council put it to him that had the review found the concerns raised by the councillors to be well founded, he would have taken credit. Mr Cullen denied this and Mr O’Braonain told the court the evidence was “so unbelievable as to be incapable of being true”.
During cross-examination, an article from the Wicklow Times was cited. In the article, quotes attributed to "the councillors who initiated the investigation" made claims that the Woulfe report had substantiated some of the councillors' concerns.
During cross-examination, Mr Cullen said he may have given a comment to the newspaper but was not responsible for the substantive points attributed to “the councillors”.
Mr Cullen’s cross-examination will continue this morning and the case is expected to conclude today.