Michael Lowry wins appeal over Tribunal costs but question of costs to be decided later

An appeal brought by Michael Lowry over a decision of the Moriarty Tribunal to award him only one-third of his legal costs - which he says runs into millions - has been allowed by the Court of Appeal.

Michael Lowry wins appeal over Tribunal costs but question of costs to be decided later

By Ann O'Loughlin

An appeal brought by Michael Lowry over a decision of the Moriarty Tribunal to award him only one-third of his legal costs - which he says runs into millions - has been allowed by the Court of Appeal.

The court sent the question of what the amount of those costs should be back to the tribunal for reconsideration.

The three-judge court, however, dismissed his appeal in relation to a specific ruling by the tribunal that he not be awarded all his costs having regard to findings of non-cooperation by him.

The High Court had previously dismissed his challenge to the costs decision because he engaged in "a litany of falsification and deception" in his failure to co-operate with the tribunal which was set up to inquire into payments to politicians and related matters and which sat for 15 years.

Mr Lowry appealed that decision claiming, among other things, he was treated differently from one of the other tribunal subjects, the late former Taoiseach Charles Haughey, who was awarded his costs.

The tribunal opposed the appeal.

The appeal judgement was delivered today by president Mr Justice Sean Ryan, whose colleagues, Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan and Mr Justice John Edwards, were in agreement.

In its general ruling on costs, the tribunal emphasised the importance of distinguishing accordingly between substantive findings and findings in regard to co-operation, Mr Justice Ryan said.

It said co-operation was confined to consideration of the clearest findings of deliberate concealment, falsification or untruth where the tribunal "is satisfied the evidence supporting the findings is beyond any doubt and where that concealment, falsification or untruth has subsequently been laid bare".

The tribunal added that it "regrettably" had encountered "many instances of such conduct in the course of its inquiries".

It was relevant to the issues arising in the appeal that Mr Lowry had no notice of matters which the tribunal considered in its general ruling on determining the portion of costs to be allowed by reason of non-cooperation, Mr Justice Ryan said.

In its specific ruling, the tribunal concluded he should recover only one-third of his costs.

The judge said the tribunal had acknowledged it made no findings of non-cooperation in connection with its investigation of the awarding of the country's second GSM phone licence which occupied a considerable portion of its work.

Mr Lowry argued this meant there was a disproportionate reduction in the amount of costs he was awarded. He had also argued the non-cooperation findings were arrived at in breach of fair procedures and without adequate material to substantiate them.

Mr Justice Ryan said he did not consider the tribunal to be in breach of fair procedure obligations in relation to its specific ruling which made findings of non-cooperation.

While he was conscious of the tribunal's observation that there was no mathematical formula that can be applied to the question of appropriate and just deduction of costs, it "is not clear to me why the tribunal fixed on such a very substantial reduction" he said.

On the face of it, it appeared the decision was made to deprive Mr Lowry of part of the costs of representation at modules of the tribunal in which there was no allegation of non-operation "but what the reason was or how the amount was determined is impossible to ascertain", he said.

The judge was concerned with the requirements for reasons to be given as a matter of administrative law and on the related question of the failure to offer Mr Lowry an opportunity to address the quantum of the reduction and the methodology of measurement the tribunal was going to adopt.

"In my view, the ruling has to be interpreted as embodying some impermissible considerations", he said.

Mr Lowry was alerted by the tribunal as to possible findings of non-cooperation but he was not alerted to the potential consequences in relation to the amount of disallowance of his costs, he said.

While dismissing the appeal in relation to the specific ruling that he should not be awarded all his costs,, he allowed the appeal in relation to the decision that he should only get one-third having regard to the findings of non-cooperation in accordance with the principles of the general ruling and in accordance with the appeal court's judgment.

He was therefore entitled to an order quashing the tribunal's costs decision of October 31, 2013.

more courts articles

Man (25) in court charged with murdering his father and attempted murder of mother Man (25) in court charged with murdering his father and attempted murder of mother
Man appears in court charged with false imprisonment of woman in van Man appears in court charged with false imprisonment of woman in van
Man in court over alleged false imprisonment of woman Man in court over alleged false imprisonment of woman

More in this section

Mother and daughters killed in Mayo crash named locally, as husband returns to Ireland 'Their smiles lit up the room': Tributes paid to mother and daughters killed in Mayo crash
Gardaí hoping to reunite lost 'Dad' urn with owner Gardaí hoping to reunite lost 'Dad' urn with owner
Irish constitution referenda Transport Minister does not envisage congestion charges in near future
War_map
Cookie Policy Privacy Policy Brand Safety FAQ Help Contact Us Terms and Conditions

© Examiner Echo Group Limited