The Supreme Court is expected to give a decision next week on an application to reimpose a stay on the work of the Oireachtas sub-committee inquiring into cost overruns in the mini-CTC rail signalling project. The sub-committee is due to sit on Tuesday but may postpone its hearing pending the Supreme Court decision.
The court yesterday reserved its judgment on an appeal by Mrs Noreen McDonnell, widow of late CI╔ chief executive Mr Michael McDonnell, against the High Court's decision to lift a stay imposed earlier this month on the proceedings of the sub-committee.
Chief Justice Mr Keane said the court was not in a position to give judgment yesterday but hoped to give its decision as soon as possible, possibly by Wednesday.
Mr Garret Cooney SC, for Mrs McDonnell, said a stay was granted by the High Court on October 3rd when his client secured leave to challenge, in a judicial review that have yet to be heard, aspects of the conduct of the sub-committee's proceedings. However, the stay was lifted on October 15th.
Mr Cooney argued that, as far as his client was concerned, the sub-committee had breached requirements to conduct its investigation in accordance with its own rules and with the requirements of natural and Constitutional justice.
It would be less than satisfactory if the sub-committee proceedings were allowed continue while a principal matter in contention - the disadvantage suffered by Mrs McDonnell as a result of inadequate legal representation - remained. He also argued some sub-committee members had engaged in prejudgments of some matters they were investigating.
Mr Frank Clarke SC, for the sub-committee, said Mrs McDonnell's assertion of her right to protect the good name of her late husband was "novel" since the right of action in defamation did not survive the death of the defamed.
He said the sub-committee was anxious to hear the balance of evidence. There were approximately four further days of evidence to be followed by cross-examination of witnesses. The sub-committee was not aware of any allegation being made by any of the witnesses due to be heard that adversely reflected on the good name and reputation of the late Mr McDonnell.
He added there was no real likelihood the report of the sub-committee would be published prior to the hearing of the judicial review proceedings. Time was also a consideration; there was a real risk of the inquiry work of the sub-committee being lost.