AN ACTION by former assistant Dublin city and county manager George Redmond aimed at quashing planning tribunal findings against him should be dismissed because of the delay of six years in prosecuting his case, the tribunal has told the High Court.
Mr Redmond issued his High Court case in 2005 in response to findings of the third interim report of the then Flood tribunal against in 2004.
Mr Redmond wants to quash findings that he had received corrupt payments in relation to planning matters and had obstructed the tribunal. He claims his constitutional rights were breached on how those findings were made and has also sought damages and challenged the tribunal’s order to pay legal costs associated with the tribunal.
His proceedings are against the Flood (now Mahon) tribunal, the State and the Attorney General.
Yesterday, Mr Justice Paul Gilligan was told the tribunal was seeking to have Mr Redmond’s action dismissed for want of prosecution. Mr Redmond is opposing that application.
The court also heard Mr Redmond was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment in 2003 but this was overturned as unsafe on appeal and he was released six months later.
Outlining the tribunal’s application yesterday, Patricia Dillon SC said Mr Redmond had delayed for several years in progressing his action since it started in 2005. He had notified his intention to proceed in May 2010 but a draft statement of claim was not delivered until more than a year later, counsel said. The only explanation given for that delay was that Mr Redmond was awaiting a Supreme Court decision in relation to a separate tribunal matter involving Joseph Murphy Structural Engineering, delivered in April 2010, counsel said.
Mr Redmond had argued, after being released from jail following his appeal, he was not in a position to pay for legal advice to progress his High Court case. He also argued he found himself overwhelmed with paperwork and had to represent himself at other modules of the planning tribunal.
By 2011, he was 87 and not as physically or mentally strong as he was a few years previously, he claimed.
Ms Dillon argued Mr Redmond had “parked his proceedings” without notification to the tribunal and was not entitled to do so.
The claim by Mr Redmond that he was awaiting the outcome of the Joseph Murphy decision was not reasonable because that case was concerned only with costs and not the substantive findings against Mr Murphy, she submitted. Mr Redmond’s case was about the substantive findings of the tribunal as well as costs, counsel said. The fact Mr Redmond was getting older meant it was in his interest for the case to proceed expeditiously, she added.
Not only was there a six-year silence from Mr Redmond in relation to his case, there was never any application by him to court for an extension of time to take his proceedings, Ms Dillon said. He was required to provide an objective explanation for the delay but there was no justifiable basis for the delay, she submitted.
The case continues today.
