Lawyer rejects claim Ivor Callely had settled case

Lawyers for an accountancy firm which sought to jail former politician Ivor Callely over an unpaid debt have rejected claims the case had been already settled by the time a court issued an arrest warrant.

The former Fianna Fáil minister of state was jailed for five months in 2014 for using false invoices to claim expenses €4,207.45 at Leinster House, Kildare Street between November 2007 and December 2009 while he was a member of the Seanad.

However, in an unrelated case, Mr Callely (58) of St Lawrence's Road, Clontarf, was supposed to appear before Judge Michael Coghlan at Dublin District Court on Tuesday. He did not show up resulting in a bench warrant being issued for his arrest.

The proceedings results from his failure to comply with terms of a District Court judgment in 2013 compelling him to pay a €1,755 debt to Galway based accountants Gallagher & Company who have asked the judge to issue a committal order.

Solicitor Mark Newman told the court Callely had not complied with an order made last month requiring him to provide documentation outlining his income and expenditure.

“I had required documentation to be in court today, I had indicated there would be certain consequences if he failed to provide that documentation. Insofar as he is not here, I am simply issuing a warrant for his arrest,” Judge Coghlan had said.

On Tuesday evening, a spokesman for Mr Callely said there was a breakdown in communications at some point.

RTÉ reported that it was Mr Callely's understanding that "a satisfactory conclusion was reached by all parties involved on the steps of the court today".

The spokesman added: “There has clearly been a breakdown in communications at some point.”

Mr Callely is actively looking to have the matter cleared up immediately, the statement also said.

However, when contacted on Wednesday, Mr Newman said: “I can confirm that there has been no breakdown of communication. Mr Callely has not made any arrangements for the payment of the sum due, which is still outstanding.”

He also said he was concerned an impression had been given that the case had been already settled before the warrant was issued.