Tipperary North TD Michael Lowry and businessmen Denis O'Brien and Declan Ganley have separately welcomed the Supreme Court decision to allow the losing consortia to challenge the 1995 mobile licence decision.
In a statement following today’s judgment, Mr Lowry said he had always advocated that a court of law “with its established rules and procedures is the proper forum to critically probe the process”.
“Shortly after the licence was granted and the losing consortia started a campaign to undermine the process, I as then minister invited and encouraged the losing bidders to seek a judicial review of the process. They declined that request,” Mr Lowry’s statement said.
“I welcome the fact that 17 years later the Supreme Court is granting them the opportunity to have that decision tested in law. I sincerely hope that the consortia involved with the claim will now belatedly proceed with their legal challenge.”
He said he was happy the losing consortia’s court challenge would be governed by “strict rules of evidence where facts must be established, where the sworn evidence of those who know the facts such as more than 17 civil servants and all others involved in the process will have to be accurately adjudicated on to the exclusion of hearsay and opinion”.
“This claim is without merit or substance and should be vigorously defended by the State.”
A statement issued on behalf of Denis O'Brien said he was a defendant in the claim "being misleadingly referred to as 'the Comcast claim'".
"However, that claim is not being supported by the Comcast Corporation. Indeed, the sole plaintiff in that action is Mr Declan Ganley suing in a personal capacity."
The statement said the consortium in which Mr Ganley was involved came last out of the six applicants in the licence competition process.
"Persona is a limited liability company owned by Mr Tony Boyle and Mr Michael McGinley which exists only to pursue a damages action against the State."
“I have always believed that the appropriate forum in which to have these allegations against the licence process heard and adjudicated upon was the courts and not the tribunal of inquiry; whose legal team was led by Persona’s former legal adviser," Mr O'Brien's statement said.
"I very much welcome the opportunity to vigorously defend these allegations in the High Court, where established rules of evidence and procedure will be properly followed and where hearsay, rumour and innuendo will have no place."
He said he was "absolutely satisfied that these allegations being pursued by Persona and Mr Ganley will be demonstrated to be devoid of evidence and substance".
He would "fully and vigorously defend all relevant allegations made in relation to the licence competition process".
Mr O'Brien said Esat Digifone Limited won the second mobile phone licence competition process "for the very simple reason that it submitted the best bid out of the six applicants".
He looked forward to the State also "vigorously defending these proceedings in order to maintain and protect the integrity and reputation of the Irish civil service and of the individual civil servants involved in conducting the licence competition process".
Businessman Declan Ganley who was involved in one of the two unsuccessful bids for the mobile licence, this morning tweeted: “I'm delighted with Irish Supreme Court's decision to allow my Cellstar appeal re 2nd Mobile licence 'competition' .
The Moriarty tribunal report published last year found former minister Mr Lowry “secured the winning” of the 1995 mobile phone licence competition for Mr O’Brien’s Esat Digifone.
It found Mr O’Brien made two payments to Mr Lowry, in 1996 and 1999, totalling about £500,000, and supported a loan of Stg£420,000 given to Lowry in 1999. Mr O’Brien has rejected the tribunal’s findings.
Taoiseach Enda Kenny said the Government will reflect on the outcome of the Supreme Court ruling.
"In respect of those bidders who were unsuccessful in the licensing round at that time, Government will need to see the written judgment here and the rationale applied to that by the Supreme Court before we can have a proper assessment of the possible outcomes," he said.
“I understand that that written judgment may not be produced for some time so I’d prefer to see written judgement and have the Government reflect on that in the light of the possible outcomes that might come from it.”
Asked if he was satisfied that the government of which he was a member handled the licensing process correctly, he said: “There was a tribunal of inquiry into this and that tribunal made its findings. This was in an appeal to the Supreme Court by those who were unsuccessful because on the last to the High Court the decision was that they were outside the legitimate time for an appeal.
“So the Supreme Court has made its judgment now and I’m going to see what the written judgement of that is. Government will reflect on the outcome of that.”