The former CIE chairman, Mr Dermot O'Leary, has been refused leave by the High Court to bring a claim that two senior civil servants were involved in a conspiracy to have him removed from his post by the minister, Mr Michael Lowry, in 1995.
Mr O'Leary had asked the court for leave to amend his legal proceedings against the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications so as to include a claim for conspiracy. The proceedings were initiated in March 1996, challenging his alleged dismissal in April 1995.
In an affidavit supporting the application, a former CIE board member, Mr Anthony Rooney, said that Mr Michael McDonnell (now CIE group chief executive) and Mr John Loughrey (a former secretary of the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications and now Secretary of the Department of Public Enterprise) had arranged to have Mr O'Leary fired.
Mr Rooney said Mr McDonnell had told him Mr Lowry was "an idiot" who "only wants his face in the media" and was "delighted to go along with it."
The allegations by Mr Rooney have been strongly denied by Mr Loughrey and Mr McDonnell. In an affidavit, Mr Loughrey said the claims were untrue and absolutely and totally false.
Mr Loughrey also questioned the credibility of Mr Rooney and added that the allegation of conspiracy was "senseless" because neither he nor the other alleged conspirators could have had any person dismissed from the CIE board. Such decisions could be made only by the government, he said.
In his reserved judgment on the application to amend yesterday, Mr Justice Kelly noted that much of the material in Mr Rooney's affidavit was hearsay and would not be admissible in legal proceedings. The hearsay included an alleged conversation in April 1995 between Mr Rooney and Mr Michael Brennan, deceased former general manager of the Doyle Hotel Group.
Mr Rooney alleged that Mr Brennan had told him Mr McDonnell and Mr Loughrey had arranged for Mr O'Leary to be dismissed by Mr Lowry, and that Mr Rooney should vote for Mr McDonnell when he was proposed for the position of group chief executive of CIE at a forthcoming board meeting.
Mr Justice Kelly noted that the original reliefs sought by Mr O'Leary in his legal proceedings were orders quashing his alleged dismissal on April 25th, 1995, and directing payment of arrears of salary and damages.
Mr O'Leary was also seeking a declaration that when dismissing him the minister was obliged to comply with the Transport Act and with the requirements of natural and constitutional justice.
The judge said the real matter at issue was whether Mr O'Leary was dismissed, as he himself alleged, or whether he resigned, as was alleged on behalf of the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications.
The court should permit the bringing of an additional claim in proceedings only if it was necessary to determine the real points of controversy between the parties. The addition of a conspiracy claim was not necessary to determine the central question in this case, whether Mr O'Leary was dismissed or resigned.
He also noted that information from Mr Rooney was made available to Mr O'Leary in September 1998, but no motion to amend the proceedings was made until July last. The motion came on for hearing earlier this month. That delay alone was in itself sufficient to dismiss the application to amend.
Mr Justice Kelly said the proceedings began as judicial review proceedings, and leave to take these was granted in March 1996. Such proceedings were subject to time limitations.
An applicant could not advance a case on a ground which was not put forward in the application for leave. Issues which touched on the exercise of public authority should be brought on quickly.
The judge noted that the alleged dismissal of Mr O'Leary was in April 1995, proceedings were not initiated until March 1996, and leave to bring an additional claim of conspiracy was sought by motion only in July 1999.
The judge stressed that he had considered the application in a manner most advantageous to Mr O'Leary but could not, for the reasons stated, grant leave to amend. He dismissed the application and awarded costs to the Minister for Transport.
He put a stay on the order for costs in the event of an appeal.
