A HIGH COURT order allowing the lessee of Sachs Hotel in Dublin to apply to the English courts to have two British police detectives examined about alleged anonymous telephone calls, was upheld in the Supreme Court, yesterday.
Crofter Properties Ltd, of which Mr Hugh Tunney is a director and who is the lessor of the hotel, had the order made by Mr Justice McCracken last April.
In the High Court case, Mr Philip Smyth, a director of Genport Ltd, claimed the telephone calls alleged he was laundering drug money for the IRA through the hotel and that his brother, now a Garda chief superintendent, assisted him.
In the claim made through Genport, Mr Smyth alleged the calls were made on telephone lines listed in the names of Tunney Meats and/or Mr Tunney.
Crofter Properties has brought an action claiming Genport failed to pay rent on Sachs Hotel between August 1993 and November 1995. It also denied all the allegations. Genport counterclaimed there were reasons justifying non-payment, including its present claim for damages arising bout of the alleged phone calls.
In April, Mr Justice McCracken gave leave for Genport to apply to the English courts to have two British police detectives examined about alleged anonymous telephone calls concerning Mr Smyth and his brother. He attached terms to his order which, he said would as far as possible prevent hardship to Mr Tunney's company should it ultimately succeed.
The terms were that Genport should pay rents in full as they fell due, pending the outcome of the action. Genport should also pay Crofier £100,000 within 28 days and pay £3,900 a month relating to interest.
Yesterday in the Supreme Court, Mr Michael Carson SC, for Crofter, appealing the order, said the judge's discretion should not have been exercised in the circumstances of this case.
The Chief Justice, Mr Justice Hamilton, said the trial judge considered that in the interest of justice the request should be acceded to.
A fundamental issue in the case was whether one could appeal an order made by the High Court while in the course of a trial. In his view, an appeal was not sustainable.
The matter was completely within the discretion of the judge and that discretion was exercised fairly and within the principles of justice. The judge in order to avoid any possibility of a miscarriage of justice compensated Crofter for any delay caused by the making of the order. The court was satisfied he exercised the order in the proper manner.
Mr Justice O'Flaherty and Mr Justice Keane agreed.