DUBLIN CITY Council has lost a legal move to have developer Tom McFeely jailed immediately, prior to the outcome of his appeal against an order for his imprisonment for contempt of court orders related to the controversial Priory Hall development. The council claimed Mr McFeely had no arguable grounds of appeal, but he disputed this.
The High Court made an order for the developer’s imprisonment for three months, plus a €1 million fine, on November 17th last but, the same day, his lawyers secured a Supreme Court stay on those orders pending appeal.
The council, which had brought the High Court proceedings against Mr McFeely, was told of the stay application but did not take part in the Supreme Court hearing where it was granted.
Yesterday, Conleth Bradley, for the council, asked the Supreme Court to lift the stay, which would have meant Mr McFeely would have to go to jail and could have served the three-month term before the appeal was heard.
The Supreme Court heard High Court president Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns made the orders for three months’ imprisonment and fine after finding Mr McFeely failed to comply with undertakings relating to completion of remedial works at Priory Hall in a specified timeframe.
His lawyers obtained a stay the same day from the Supreme Court and he was released from custody.
Mr Bradley applied yesterday to vacate the stay. It was argued Mr McFeely, in seeking the stay, misrepresented to the Supreme Court the nature of the grounds of appeal against the orders.
Mr McFeely had claimed the orders jailing and fining him were imposed because he did not carry out works before November 28th last, when in fact they were imposed because he had not met weekly work targets set by the president of the High Court, counsel said. Mr McFeely did not have arguable grounds to appeal those orders and the stay on jailing him should therefore be discharged, counsel said.
Mr McFeely’s counsel, Frank Crean, said his client has an arguable case against the jailing order and if the stay on his imprisonment was lifted, he would be “irredeemably prejudiced”.
Dismissing the council’s application, Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman said Mr McFeely’s case was not beyond argument and there was an obvious argument to be made.
Among the “remarkable” aspects of this case was the council’s presumption that Mr McFeely would have been unable to get a five-judge Supreme Court to sit on a Thursday evening on November 17th last to hear the stay application, he said.
As a result, the court only heard one side that day, although Mr McFeely’s solicitor had informed the council they would make the stay application, he said.
The judge said Mr McFeely’s appeal should be heard soon, and ordered him to apply for a priority hearing date.