Businessman Joseph Murphy jnr has brought a legal action against the planning tribunal and State claiming damages over alleged misfeasance in public office.
Mr Murphy also wants formal court orders quashing findings of corruption made against him by the tribunal rather than, as the tribunal proposes, having those findings deleted from its report on its website.
The claim for damages arises from what Michael Cush SC, for Mr Murphy, described as a "pattern" of behaviour by the tribunal in not giving his client full information bearing on the credibility of his "chief and only accuser", the late James Gogarty.
In 2010, the Supreme Court overturned findings by former tribunal chairman Mr Justice Flood that Mr Murphy and Frank Reynolds, both then directors of Joseph Murphy Structural Engineering, had "obstructed and hindered" its enquiries. Those findings were made outside the tribunal's terms of reference, unlawful and could not form a basis for refusing them their costs of participating in the tribunal, the Supreme Court held.
The Supreme Court also found, and the tribunal conceded, that important material described by one of the judges as “potentially explosive” going to the credibility of Mr Gogarty was wrongly withheld by the tribunal. It included allegations made by Mr Gogarty, who died in 2005, against a politican and a law officer.
After that “trenchant” criticism over the tribunal’s disclosure failures, Mr Murphy got further “extensive” material last February, including prior statements and interviews with witnesses, which all bears on the credibility of Mr Gogarty, counsel said.
Allegations
The material showed Mr Gogarty made “extraordinary” allegations of planning corruption against a range of people who were never investigated by the tribunal. When giving evidence to the tribunal, Mr Murphy was unaware of those allegations, counsel said.
Mr Cush said the material also included transcripts related to exchanges between journalist Frank Connolly and Mr Gogarty and statements favourable to Mr Murphy which were made by others. This material had to be seen against a background where the credibility of Mr Gogarty was a "core issue".
The tribunal’s failure to give Mr Murphy that material earlier was “not just an isolated incident” but part of a pattern of behaviour and Mr Murphy was claiming damages for misfeasance in public office as a result. He was also alleging failure to vindiate his constitutional right to his good name and breach of fair procedures.
The tribunal, in reports by Mr Justice Feargus Flood of 2002 and 2004, found Mr Murphy jnr and Frank Reynolds, respectively chairman and managing director of JMSE were involved in making corrupt payments to former minister Ray Burke and now deceased former Dublin City and County manager George Redmond. Mr Justice Flood found they obstructed and hindered the tribunal by giving a false account of relevant events and falsely constructing an untrue alibi.
Mr Cush said, arising from an entirely separate case by Mr Redmond which resulted in the tribunal undertaking to withdraw all adverse findings against Mr Redmond, including of corruption, the tribunal has accepted it was obliged to undo all the findings against Mr Murphy because those too relied on the credibility of Mr Gogarty.
Adversely affected
While the tribunal now accepts the findings of corruption cannot stand, it proposed to put a notice on its website to that effect but Mr Murphy, who was very adversely affected by publicity about the findings, wanted a court order, Mr Cush said. He was entitled to that order in vindicaiton of his right to his good name.
Mr Cush said an agreement was reached with the tribunal in March 2016 the findings be deleted but his side disagreed with the tribunal it was enough to put a notice on its website stating the findings had been deleted.
After outlining the nature of the judicial review proceedings to Mr Justice Paul McDermott, the judge directed the tribunal be put on notice of Mr Murphy’s application for leave to seek judicial review and returned the matter to the next law term.
Noting Mr Cush had said he was anxious to meet the statutory time limit for judicial review, the judge said he was treating the matter as having been opened before the court.
