A Supreme Court appeal by millionaire businessman Mr Denis O'Brien against the High Court's refusal to restrain the Moriarty tribunal from holding public hearings into his 1998 purchase of Doncaster Rovers Football Club is unlikely to be held before October 20th, it emerged yesterday.
Mr Brian Murray SC, for the tribunal, told the Supreme Court yesterday that the tribunal was anxious to complete the taking of evidence regarding the Doncaster Rovers matter and wished for the appeal to be heard and determined as soon as possible.
The hearings into this aspect of the tribunal's work had begun on September 15th but was adjourned pending the outcome of Mr O'Brien's proceedings, he said.
The Chief Justice, Mr Justice Murray, said he indicated yesterday that the court may be able to hear the appeal on October 20th.
In the High Court last week, Mr Justice Herbert said he was refusing Mr O'Brien's application and would give his reasons later in a written judgment. However, that judgment is not yet available and lawyers for both sides said yesterday that they needed to see it before they could file their written submissions in the appeal.
Mr Justice Murray said the parties should inform the Supreme Court office when the judgment was available and the matter would again be listed for mention to fix a date for hearing. A date might be available on October 20th.
Mr Eoin McGonigal SC, for Mr O'Brien, said his submissions were well advanced and could be filed shortly after receipt of the High Court judgment. He believed the appeal could extend over two days. Mr Murray said the issues were net and he believed the appeal could be heard within a day.
The proceedings arise from the tribunal's inquiry into Mr O'Brien's purchase in 1998 of Doncaster Rovers FC Ltd, which owned the lease on the club's stadium, and the alleged connection of former Fine Gael transport minister Mr Michael Lowry to that deal.
In the High Court application, Mr O'Brien had contended there was no sufficient evidence justifying such a hearing and that the tribunal had failed to carry out a full and proper inquiry in private before making any decision on public hearings. It was also contended that two vital witnesses were unavailable to give evidence before the tribunal and that documents supplied to the tribunal established there were no payments to Mr Lowry regarding the deal.
The tribunal argued there were no grounds for complaint and that an injunction restraining public hearings could result in a substantial delay for the tribunal which was concluding its inquiry into alleged payments to Mr Lowry.