Baileys and Bovale win costs of action against Flood tribunal discovery order

Developer Michael Bailey, his wife and his company Bovale Developments Ltd were yesterday awarded the costs of their successful legal challenge to orders for discovery made against them by the Flood Tribunal.

The Supreme Court granted costs of the action against Mr Justice Flood, as sole member of the planning tribunal, to Bovale, with an address at Fitzwilliam Square, Dublin, and to Mr Bailey and his wife Teresa, of Killamonan House, The Ward, Co Dublin. The Chief Justice, Mr Justice Hamilton, stressed it was not against Mr Justice Flood personally.

In July last year, the Supreme Court quashed orders for discovery made by the tribunal in early 1998 in relation to Bovale and the Baileys.

The judgment followed the court's decision upholding the challenge by former Taoiseach Charles Haughey and his family to orders for discovery of their bank accounts made by the Moriarty Tribunal.

In the Bovale case, the Supreme Court quashed orders made by the tribunal chairman directing Bank of Ireland to hand over details of certain accounts at its branches at Montrose Centre, Stillorgan Road; and Lower Baggot Street.

The tribunal chairman had made orders of production and discovery in respect of the accounts in early 1998, but Bovale and the Baileys secured a temporary High Court injunction restraining the bank from complying with the orders.

The High Court dismissed the Bovale challenge but continued the injunction pending the outcome of the appeal by Bovale and the Baileys to the Supreme Court.

Giving the Supreme Court's judgment last summer, the Chief Justice said the discovery orders were made in contravention of the requirements of constitutional justice. Fair procedures were not adopted and these failures were not remedied by an insertion in the orders of a provision entitling the affected person to apply to the tribunal to vary or discharge the orders.

He added that the quashing of the orders did not preclude the tribunal chairman from making similar orders should he consider they were necessary for his functions and provided he had regard to the principles of constitutional justice and applied fair procedures.