Dublin West TD Mr Liam Lawlor had failed to comply with orders for discovery and an application was to be made to the High Court for their enforcement, the tribunal chairman stated yesterday.
Mr Justice Flood said: "There has been such negative input to date in clarifying any aspect of discovery with any degree of credibility that it is a matter now for the High Court to consider whether or not in their opinion this order has been complied with and to take such action as the High Court may think appropriate."
He made his announcement late yesterday afternoon after Mr Lawlor refused to answer questions about any credit cards he might have. A Visa card account had been found in discovery made by the National Irish Bank.
He was asked several times if he had others.
He repeated: "Chairman, I don't see it as being relevant to this tribunal. You're asking me for credit cards. What has it to do with planning in Co Dublin?"
Mr John Gallagher SC, for the tribunal, asked if he had a Brown Thomas credit card.
Mr Lawlor replied: "Mr Chairman, I am not proposing . . ." The chairman asked would he answer the question.
Mr Lawlor said: "No, I don't propose to answer the question about my credit cards because I wasn't so aware that you needed the information, chairman."
Mr Justice Flood said: "Thank you very much, thank you very much, Mr Lawlor." He continued: "With all due respect, I don't intend to sit here for any longer."
He said the proceedings flowed from an order of the tribunal dated June 8th requiring Mr Lawlor to make discovery of all documents and records in his possession relating to any accounts in any financial institutions, either inside or outside this country.
"The orders have been opened and there was a complete refusal to comply." Mr Lawlor interrupted: "That is incorrect."
The chairman continued that consequent on that he issued two subpoenas requiring Mr Lawlor to attend the tribunal and to give evidence. The validity of those subpoenas and orders were challenged in the High Court, which upheld that they were valid.
The Supreme Court effectively also held they were valid. That was the basis on which he had sat there for the past couple of days asking Mr Lawlor to produce documents and information in relation to two affidavits of discovery dated November 6th and December 10th.
He had listened carefully to Mr Lawlor's evidence so far in relation to this documentation and his explanations of the transactions.
"It is clear to me that Mr Lawlor has failed to date to comply with the order of the High Court and varied order of the Supreme Court both in regard of the extent of documents discovered and provided to the tribunal and in respect of the evidence which has been given in relation to the matters in the orders.
"In these circumstances I do not believe that I can further advance the inquiry until such time as there has been a compliance with the orders of the High Court.
"Accordingly, I intend to stand down this witness and to instruct counsel on behalf of the tribunal to apply to the High Court for enforcement of orders made there to date until such further orders that the High Court may make."
He would therefore stand down the witness until such time as the High Court proceedings had been completed.