Denis O’Brien has lost his legal action over statements made in the Dáil about his banking affairs with the IBRC.
He claimed remarks made by Social Democrats TD Catherine Murphy and Sinn Féin’s Pearse Doherty effectively decided a case he was taking against RTÉ.
In the end, the High Court decided it was forbidden to intervene under the Irish Constitution.
BREAKING Denis O'Brien has lost his legal action over statements made in the Dáil about his banking affairs with IBRC
— Frank Greaney (@FrankGreaney) March 31, 2017
On April 30th 2015, Denis O’Brien was granted a temporary injunction in order to protect his dealings with the IBRC from being broadcast on RTÉ.
It was still in place when Deputies Catherine Murphy and Pearse Doherty subsequently revealed some of those details in the Dáil.
By doing so, he claimed they effectively decided the outcome of his case and left him with no choice but to concede.
He described it as an “unwarranted interference” with the work of the courts and Ms. Justice Una Ní Raifertaigh was asked to reprimand them for doing so.
In her 106-page judgement, she said the tension between freedom of speech in the Dáil and the role of the courts reaches an “acute point” when a member of the Oireachtas uses parliamentary privilege to release confidential information that’s subject to a court order.
“Should the courts intervene when this happens?” she asked. No, was the answer. Not unless there’s a grave threat to the Constitution, and that’s not the case here, she said.
Mr. O’Brien wasn’t in court this morning. Deputy Murphy was and afterwards she refuted the judge’s comment that the release of his private banking affairs was done in a “deliberate and considered manner” saying if you're not party to an injunction you don't know what the details of it are.
She also stated that her motivation for releasing the information was that she was acting in the public interest.
In a statement this afternoon, Denis O'Brien has said he's disappointed by today's judgment and intends to study it in detail before deciding whether to appeal.
However he said he was encouraged by several sections of the judgment, including the suggestion that the case may highlight the need for a general examination of the area of parliamentary privilege, particularly when TDs are discussing matters before the courts.
The issue of costs will be dealt with next week.
Our Courts Correspondent Frank Greaney reports:
