Flood v Lawlor (Planning Tribunal)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Keane C.J
• Judgment Date: 24 November 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] IESC 76
• Court: Supreme Court
• Docket Number: 278/00
• Date: 24 November 2000

[2000] IESC 76

THE SUPREME COURT

Keane C.J.

Murphy J.

McGuinness J.

Geoghegan J.

Fennelly J.

278/00

FLOOD v. LAWLOR (PLANNING TRIBUNAL)

In the Matter of an Application pursuant to Section 4 of The Tribunals of Enquiry (Evidence) (Amendment) Act1997

BETWEEN

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE FEARGUS FLOOD SOLE MEMBER OF THE TRIBUNAL OF INQUIRY INTO CERTAIN PLANNING MATTERS AND PAYMENTS

PLAINTIFF

AND

LIAM LAWLOR

DEFENDANT

Citations:

TRIBUNALS OF INQUIRY EVIDENCE ACT 1921 S2

BAILEY & BOVALE DEVELOPMENTS V FLOOD UNREP SUPREME 14.4.2000

KEEGAN, STATE V STARDUST VICTIMS COMPENSATION TRIBUNAL 1986 IR 642

O'KEEFFE V BORD PLEANALA 1993 1 IR 39

R V LORD SAVILLE 1999 4 AER 860

Synopsis:

Tribunals of Inquiry

Tribunal of inquiry; Tribunal of inquiry into planning matters had made on order of discovery against defendant which required, inter alia, that defendant attend before the Tribunal at a sitting in public to give evidence in relation to documents and records mentioned in the order; High Court had upheld Tribunal's order; defendant appeals to Supreme Court; whether Tribunal, in an investigative phase of its tasks, should sit in public; whether defendant was sufficiently on notice of matters in respect of which questions would be put to him publicly before the Tribunal; s. 2, Tribunals of Inquiry Evidence Act, 1921.

Held: Appeal dismissed; Tribunal must respect constitutional rights but, subject to that rider, courts must afford it a significant measure of discretion to ensure that its aims are not frustrated.

Flood v. Lawlor - Supreme Court: Keane C.J., Murphy J., McGuinness J., Geoghegan J., Fennelly J. (ex tempore) - 24/11/2000

The Tribunal had ordered the appellant to attend before it in public session to give evidence in relation to certain documents it had ordered him to produce but the appellant claimed that since the Tribunal was still in an investigative mode and since he was unaware of the allegations against him he should not be compelled to attend a public sitting. The High Court had affirmed the order and the appellant appealed. The Supreme Court held that it was entirely a matter for the respondent as to whether it invoked its power of requiring a person to attend before them in public and give evidence on oath. The court would not interfere with bodies entrusted with various jurisdictions, be they tribunals or otherwise, save where the decision reached was irrational or flew in the face of common sense.

Keane C.J

1 This is an appeal from a judgment and order of the High Court (Mr. Justice Smyth) dated the 24th October 2000 in which it was ordered that the defendant in these proceedings make discovery on oath in accordance with an Order of the Tribunal of Inquiry (of which Mr. Justice Flood is the Sole Member) into certain planning matters and payments, dated 8th June 2000 for specified periods which it is not necessary to recite, which also ordered that the defendant should attend before the Tribunal and produce and hand over the documents and records within a specified time and then thirdly ordered that the defendant attend before the Tribunal at a sitting in public to give evidence to the Tribunal in relation to documents and records mentioned in the Order of the plaintiff made on the 8th of June 2000 in respect of the first period, not later than two weeks from that date, no notification to the defendant or his solicitors by the Tribunal as to the exact time and place at least two clear days in advance and thereafter as may be determined by the Tribunal from time to time.

2 It is the third part of that Order from which the defendant has now appealed to this court, that is, the Order requiring him to attend before the Tribunal at a public sitting. That Order gives in turn effect to the Order purportedly made by the Tribunal in relation to this matter, that is, requiring the production of documents and also requiring the defendant to attend at a public sitting of the Tribunal to give evidence in relation to those documents.

3 Accordingly this court today is not concerned with the other two requirements of that Order and it is understood, and the court has been so informed, that the defendant in these proceedings has responded to that Order by the production of documents.

4 However, on the hearing of this appeal Mr. Rogers has submitted to this court that the finding of the learned High Court Judge, Mr. Justice Smyth, was erroneous in law and I think one can reasonably summarise Mr. Rogers' submissions in this way. He says that the Tribunal, so far...