An eight-year legal battle arising from the alleged wrongful dismissal of the former CIÉ chairman, Mr Dermot O'Leary, ended yesterday at the High Court, writes Mary Carolan.
The action by Mr O'Leary against the Minister for Transport and the State was due to open before Mr Justice Kelly yesterday and was expected to last six days. However, at 2.40 p.m. yesterday, after talks between the sides, Mr Colm Allen SC, with Mr Mel Christle, for Mr O'Leary, told the judge the matter had been "compromised".
Mr Allen read an agreed statement to the court. It said: "These proceedings arose from a meeting of April 25th, 1995. The meeting led to different understandings by the parties.
"Given the events took place so long ago, Mr O'Leary is happy to withdraw his claim and the Department is happy to acknowledge the valuable service given by Mr O'Leary to CIÉ and the other semi-State boards on which he served."
Mr Justice Kelly said he was glad the parties were able to bring "this lengthy saga" to an end. He noted that Mr O'Leary was withdrawing his claim. That being so, the matter was at an end, and there would be no further order as to costs.
Earlier yesterday, when the case was due to open at 11 a.m., Mr Allen said he had just that morning received an additional affidavit of discovery from the State and wanted an adjournment until today to consider a number of documents referred to and to take instructions.
Mr Brian O'Moore SC, for the State, said the documents, while some were relevant to the case, were nonetheless "anodyne". Some of the documents were minutes of cabinet decisions of April 1995.
In the interests of having the case determined, his side was willing to waive privilege over some of the documents but was claiming privilege over others. He argued there was no need to adjourn the matter for the time sought by Mr Allen.
After hearing submissions from both sides, Mr Justice Kelly said he would read the documents. He did so and expressed the view they were not of material importance to the case. He adjourned the matter to 2 p.m. to allow Mr Allen time to consider whether he was challenging the claim of privilege.
Afterewards, Mr O'Leary said he was happy with the outcome but declined to comment further.
In his proceedings, Mr O'Leary had claimed he was wrongfully dismissed from his position as CIÉ chairman in 1995.
The State argued that he was not dismissed but had tendered his resignation at a meeting with a former government minister, Mr Michael Lowry, on April 25th, 1995.
In addition to damages, he had sought an order to restore him to the position of chairman of CIÉ. A claim that he was the victim of a conspiracy by two civil servants to have him removed was not being proceeded with, an earlier court hearing was told.
Last month, when the case was mentioned to Mr Justice Kelly, Mr Brian O'Moore SC, with Mr Brian Murray SC, for the State, said the proceedings related to a critical meeting lasting between four and 10 minutes in April 1995.
Mr O'Leary's application for leave to seek a judicial review was not made until March 1996, 11bmonths later, and this delay would be one of the issues in the proceedings, counsel said.
Mr O'Leary was seeking an order quashing his removal from office as CIÉ's chairman, but in the meantime there had not been one but two other chairmen appointed in 1995.
The reality was that, even before Mr O'Leary began proceedings, those proceedings had been seriously undermined, counsel said.
Mr O'Moore said it would be unreal, after such a long time, that the court would direct Mr O'Leary's reinstatement. His contract had expired in June 1999, counsel added.