State pledges to wait in O'Flaherty case

An undertaking was given yesterday in the Supreme Court that the Government would not take any further steps in relation to the…

An undertaking was given yesterday in the Supreme Court that the Government would not take any further steps in relation to the appointment of Mr O'Flaherty to the European Investment Bank until next Friday. The Supreme Court adjourned to Friday an application by a college lecturer, Mr Denis Riordan, for an order preventing the Government taking further action which might lead to the appointment of former Supreme Court judge Mr Hugh O'Flaherty to the European Investment Bank.

Earlier this month, the High Court refused Mr Riordan's application to restrain the nomination of Mr O'Flaherty. Mr Riordan has lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court and wants the temporary order restraining the appointment until the Supreme Court determines the matter.

In addition to hearing the injunction application next Friday, the Supreme Court will also hear a motion by the Government seeking to have Mr Riordan's appeal struck out.

Mr James O'Reilly SC, for the State, was asked yesterday if his clients would give an undertaking not to take any steps in relation to Mr O'Flaherty's appointment.

READ MORE

Mr O'Reilly said he had received clear instructions not to give an undertaking.

Mr Justice Murphy said he understood the Government had the power to nominate but did not make the appointment. All the court was concerned with were the activities within the power of Mr O'Reilly's clients.

The court gave Mr Riordan permission to open his application for an injunction. When it resumed the matter after lunch yesterday, Ms Justice Denham, the presiding judge, said the decision regarding Mr O'Flaherty's nomination had been made and the matter had "left our shores". That put Mr Riordan in difficulties, she said.

Mr O'Reilly said the Government had taken a decision to nominate Mr O'Flaherty and the decision had been communicated to the EIB and the matter had left these shores.

Mr Justice Murphy asked why, in such circumstances, Mr O'Reilly's clients could not give an undertaking not to do anything for a week if there was nothing more to do?

Mr O'Reilly said that giving such an undertaking might be misinterpreted.

If the Government had exercised its powers, then what harm was there in giving an undertaking for seven days, Ms Justice Denham asked.

The court adjourned the hearing to allow Mr O'Reilly to get instructions. When the court resumed, Mr Reilly said his clients would not take steps between now and July 7th. Ms Justice Denham adjourned the hearing to next Friday.