'No right' to defend name of dead

There is no right to defend the reputation of someone who has died, the lawyer representing the Mahon tribunal has told the High…

There is no right to defend the reputation of someone who has died, the lawyer representing the Mahon tribunal has told the High Court. Denis McDonald SC, for the tribunal, was opposing the application by Hazel Lawlor, widow of former Fianna Fáil TD Liam Lawlor, to restrain the Mahon planning tribunal from proceeding with the Quarryvale Two module.

He argued yesterday that Ms Lawlor lacked the necessary legal standing to maintain the judicial review proceedings which she had taken. That challenge should be set aside, he said. The issues she was seeking to raise involved not her, but her late husband.

"There is no right to defend the reputation of a deceased person," he added. "That may sound harsh, but that is the law."

There was nothing to suggest any prejudice against Ms Lawlor. She had failed to show any concrete evidence that there was any bias against her, or that her rights had been or would be infringed, Mr McDonald argued.

READ MORE

Maurice Collins SC, for the State, said there was significant public interest in the completion of the Mahon tribunal inquiries as expeditiously as possible as there were significant claims of wrongdoing involved. "It goes beyond individual parties at the tribunal," he told Mr Justice Iarfhlaith O'Neill.

The Quarryvale Two module opened 18 months ago and had been restrained beyond its control in that time, he said. It was now ready to proceed and had notified the public of its intention to go ahead on April 30th.

Ms Lawlor wants the stay pending the outcome of her judicial review challenge. In her judicial review application, Ms Lawlor, Somerton House, Lucan, Co Dublin, wants orders to stop the tribunal making findings of serious misconduct against herself or her late husband unless supported by evidence proven beyond reasonable doubt.

She claims that if there is no stay granted pending her legal challenge to the tribunal, damage could be done to her late husband, his estate and to her and her family "which would not be susceptible to later repair".

The case continues today before Mr Justice O'Neill.