Lawlor criticises 'obscene rush' to deal with costs

The planning tribunal's seemingly endless battles with Mr Liam Lawlor are set to continue next week with a ruling by the chairman, Judge Alan Mahon, on whether to impose costs on the former Fianna Fáil TD for his failure to co-operate.

However, Judge Mahon's determination to impose costs on Mr Lawlor now, rather than years later when he issues a final report, was frustrated yesterday by opposition from lawyers for the Attorney General and the Minister for Finance.

At yesterday's hearing Mr Lawlor launched an angry attack on the tribunal's "obscene rush" to deal with the costs issue and announced he was starting a fresh court challenge to its dealings with him.

Mr Lawlor then read from a prepared statement which he continued to read in spite of efforts by the chairman to interrupt him, as well as attempts to switch off his microphone.

With Judge Mahon unable to silence Mr Lawlor, he eventually walked out and proceedings were abruptly halted.

After a 10-minute recess, Judge Mahon returned to say Mr Lawlor had abused his chance to make submissions on the costs issue, "and I don't propose hearing any more from him".

Mr Lawlor had earlier called for a Garda investigation into a newspaper article which, he said, was "very prejudicial" to him because it claimed he was the source of the information about Judge Mahon's 1992 tax settlement that emerged in the media last week.

The politician also called on the tribunal to clarify its position, given the claim in the story in Ireland on Sunday that tribunal lawyers believed he had "planted" the story in the media.

He said he had already written to complain to the Garda Commissioner, Mr Noel Conroy.

Mr Lawlor, who has been representing himself before the tribunal, said he had re-engaged lawyers in order to take proceedings against the tribunal in the High Court.

These would be based on the lack of fairness shown by the tribunal in its dealings with him.

The "last straw" was the appearance of the developer, Mr Séamus Ross, at the tribunal last week.

Mr Ross, who said he paid Mr Lawlor over £40,000 to get the postal address of one of his housing estates changes, had been allowed to make "unsubstantiated and serious allegations of criminal behaviour" against him, and he had not been allowed to cross-examine the witness or put an alternative side of the story.

On the costs issue, tribunal lawyers argued that the chairman had the power to deal with Mr Lawlor's non-compliance with its orders separate from the substantive issues it was investigating.

However, lawyers for the Minister for Finance argued that it would not be appropriate for Judge Mahon to adjudicate separately on the costs involved in a phase of the tribunal before the substantive matters had been dealt with and a report issued.

Counsel for the Attorney General, acting for the public interest, supported this submission.

Judge Mahon, who sat alone to determine the costs issue, said he would issue a ruling in a few days.