A solicitor for the Moriarty tribunal has denied before the High Court a claim by businessman Mr Dermot Desmond that the tribunal had failed to afford him fair procedures and had particularly failed to give him a chance to protect his reputation.
Mr Desmond claims his rights have been breached by the reading into the public record of the tribunal of the Glackin Report, which investigated the sale of the former Johnston, Mooney and O'Brien site at Ballsbridge, Dublin, and the involvement of two property companies in which Mr Desmond was found to have an interest in.
While there was no dispute that Mr Desmond was entitled to fair procedures, the tribunal was claiming by implication that referring to the Glackin Report did not breach Mr Desmond's right to fair procedures, a solicitor for Mr Desmond said in an affidavit.
That claim was disputed and Mr Desmond was contending the reading of the findings into the public record is damaging to his reputation.
Mr Justice Quirke yesterday began the hearing of Mr Desmond's proceedings against the tribunal.
He is seeking a number of orders and declarations, including a declaration that the tribunal has acted in excess of its powers in pursuing inquiries of witnesses as to his suitability to be a member of the consortium for the granting of the second mobile phone licence.
The Glackin Report was concerned with the sale of the Johnson Mooney and O'Brien site at Ballsbridge, Dublin, to Telecom Éireann and the involvement of two property companies which Mr Desmond was found to have an interest in.
Counsel for Mr Desmond told the High Court when the proceedings were before the High Court two months ago that his client had always disputed the Glackin Report.
The Moriarty tribunal is inquiring into decisions taken by former Minister Michael Lowry leading to the granting of the second mobile phone licence to Esat Digifone/Telenor/IIU consortium. Mr Desmond is involved with IIU Ltd.
When the case began yesterday, Mr Gerard Hogan SC, for Mr Desmond, read an affidavit by a solicitor, Ms Helen Rackard, for Mr Desmond.
She said that the Moriarty tribunal was not an inquiry into the award of the licence as such and no allegations had been made against her client concerning the competition or awarding of the licence.
Ms Rackard said her client was entitled to fair procedures because he was a member of the Esat Digifone consortium that was granted the second mobile phone licence.
The tribunal was inquiring into whether Mr Lowry conferred any benefit on any member of that consortium.
Although it had been indicated there was no case being made against Mr Desmond, the tribunal had not restricted itself to facts that had emerged in the private phase of its investigation.
As such, he was clearly entitled to be afforded fair procedures in respect of the tribunal's current module. Unless it was contended that Mr Desmond should be permanently represented throughout the entire public hearings of the tribunal - 225 days so far (69 days on the current module) - on the off-chance that something relevant might come up, fair procedures required the tribunal to put him on notice of issues it intended pursuing, the outcome of which might reasonably adversely affect his reputation, she said.
So far as the Glackin report was concerned, the tribunal was at a minimum required to notify Mr Desmond that it intended investigating whether consideration of a report by an evaluation team (for the licence) had been avoided through any intervention on Mr Lowry's part.
In another affidavit, Mr John Davis, solicitor to the tribunal, said evidence concerning membership of the Esat Digifone consortium was not entirely clear. The hearing continues today.