Allegations that Dublin West Fianna Fail TD Mr Liam Lawlor turned up uninvited at a meeting of a British property company in London, said he was a representative of the Irish Government and sought a share in a proposed development at Quarryvale in Dublin were "utterly false", the High Court was told yesterday.
Mr Adrian Hardiman SC, for Mr Lawlor, said damaging and malicious allegations had been made against his client and he was being asked to appear before the Flood Tribunal without having details of such claims.
Counsel was opening a challenge by Mr Lawlor, who was not in court, to an order of the Flood Tribunal on April 26th that he answer questions put by its counsel.
Among reliefs sought by Mr Lawlor is a declaration that he is entitled to be given sufficient detail of allegations or statements adverse to him so he can address them to the extent necessary and make detailed submissions on any order contemplated.
An order overturning a tribunal ruling that he give it an affidavit stating the names of any companies of which he was a shareholder or director or in which he had a beneficial interest between January 1st, 1987 and December 31st, 1994 is also sought.
Mr Lawlor wants to overturn an order directing him to give the tribunal documents relating to accounts held by or on behalf of him in any bank, building society or other financial institution between January 1st, 1987 and December 31st, 1994.
The tribunal is also seeking documents relating to the payment to Mr Lawlor of any monies by Arlington Securities plc and/or Mr Thomas Gilmartin or by anybody on their behalf.
Mr Hardiman told Mr Justice Kearns that, through the media, Mr Lawlor had got some flavour of some of the allegations made but they were sketchy. Mr Lawlor feared he would be examined about allegations which might never be made in open forum by persons with that knowledge. Mr Patrick Hanratty SC, for the tribunal, said it was not seeking to have Mr Lawlor examined by counsel under oath. It wanted him to attend for interview by tribunal counsel as part of its investigation. Whether the examination was under oath or otherwise, it would be by counsel for the tribunal and outside the presence of the chairman, Mr Hardiman said. Mr Lawlor said he might disclose information which, in itself, would be prejudicial, even though properly contextualised it would favour him. It was most unfair and inequitable that he should present himself for interrogation by a person or persons who had full knowledge of what was alleged in circumstances where he had none, or virtually none.
Mr Justice Kearns said the tribunal appeared to be making clear in the correspondence with Mr Lawlor's solicitors the matters which it was investigating.
Mr Hardiman said his client was not being told what he was supposed to have done. He said this seemed to centre on allegations regarding a meeting in London. The court was told it is alleged Mr Lawlor had turned up uninvited at a meeting in London of Arlington Securities plc, introduced himself as an Irish Government representative and asked for a substantial share in a proposed development at Quarryvale. It has also been alleged Arlington agreed at the meeting to pay Mr Lawlor £3,500 per month, and that the payments were made through Mr Gilmartin.
Mr Hardiman said Mr Lawlor rejected such claims as "utterly false". There were anonymous and malicious allegations and Mr Lawlor must know what precisely was alleged against him and by whom. The tribunal appeared to be in possession of the information which Mr Lawlor was seeking. It was clear it had documents by Mr Gilmartin which referred to Mr Lawlor and this was evidence reflecting on his good name, to which he was entitled.
Mr Hardiman said there was no allegation the information was being leaked by the tribunal but Mr Lawlor wanted the opportunity to confront those making damaging allegations about him. Counsel also said a Garda investigation into leaks regarding matters being investigated by the tribunal had concluded without result. However, Mr Hanratty said the investigation was not futile. The tribunal expected to get "significant" information regarding four major leaks that had occurred. The hearing continues today.