Lawyers for Mr Liam Lawlor are expected to go to the Supreme Court today to seek deferral of his appearance before the Flood tribunal, pending the TD's appeal against the High Court order directing him to attend.
Mr Justice Smyth, who last Tuesday ordered Mr Lawlor to appear before a public sitting of the tribunal within two weeks and produce documentation, yesterday rejected an application by him to put a stay on his order pending an appeal to the Supreme Court.
At yesterday's late-evening hearing, counsel for the tribunal strongly opposed the application for a stay but counsel for Mr Lawlor said that the resistance to a citizen's right to appeal was "extraordinary" and had not happened in any other case.
Refusing Mr Lawlor's application, Mr Justice Smyth said he had no doubt that there would be a public prejudice if the tribunal "does not get a move on".
He said "the time for taking positions is long since past".
The judge said Mr Lawlor's side was perfectly free to apply to the Supreme Court for a stay but, he declared, he would not grant one.
He said he did not see the tribunal as trying to deny the TD the right to appeal. He had to have recourse to the facts as he had found them to be, that the tribunal was set up some time ago to look into matters of urgent public importance.
Earlier, in making the application, Mr John Rogers SC said it was clear that in the absence of a stay, the matters dealt with by the High Court order would proceed and Mr Lawlor would simply not be able to appeal. Under the Constitution, he had a right to appeal and was entitled to a stay.
Mr Frank Clarke SC, for the tribunal, said the tribunal was inquiring into a matter of urgent public importance and, by definition, a matter of urgency.
The order that Mr Lawlor make information available to the tribunal might well, in turn, lead to other lines of inquiry that might involve Mr Lawlor, or perhaps other parties. All those inquiries were delayed pending compliance by Mr Lawlor with the court's orders.
Counsel said he was not sure when the Supreme Court appeal could be heard. He was sure it would do its best to have an early hearing.
Mr Lawlor was entitled to exercise his constitutional rights but he had chosen to require the tribunal to come to the High Court to seek orders.
On the application of Mr Clarke, the judge allowed any costs of yesterday's application to the tribunal.
When contacted last night, Mr Lawlor declined to comment.