Michael Lowry to appeal High Court ruling on Moriarty Tribunal costs

The Tipperary TD was only given one-third of his costs from the tribunal

Michael Lowry, legal costs, Moriarty Tribunal, High Court, appeal, cooperation,

File photo | Image: RollingNews.ie

Michael Lowry has decided to appeal a High Court judgement that the Moriarty Tribunal was right to only award him a third of his costs.

This legal challenge took over five days, and heard the overall bill for Michael Lowry’s contributions to the Moriarty tribunal amounted to millions of euro and would have “lifelong consequences” for him.

The court was previously told the overall bill for the former communications minister is "vast" and runs into several million euro.

In a statement issued this evening, Mr Lowry said his legal team have advised him to appeal the decision "on a number of substantive grounds", with preparations for an appeal already underway.

"No matter what way the Court decided today, this case is one that was always going to be brought by either side to the highest level for final decision and determination," Mr Lowry said.

Mr Lowry added that the judgment today "erroneously claims that the Tribunal had made a finding that I had been engaged with bribery and perjury."

"The Tribunal never made and could not have made any such finding and it is a matter of the gravest concern that such a damaging claim has been made," he added.

The Moriarty Tribunal was set up in 1997 to investigate alleged payments to Michael Lowry and former Taoiseach Charles Haughey. It lasted 14 years.

In 2013, a decision was made to only award a third of costs to Mr Lowry because of his lack of cooperation.

The Independent TD strongly disputed this, claiming he cooperated to such an extent that it impacted on his life, health, employment and family.

He claimed he was discriminated against - and pointed to the awarding of full costs to the late Mr Haughey as the "core issue" to be resolved.

But Mr Justice John Hedigan ruled against him today because of his failure to demonstrate any unreasonableness or discrimination in the decision.

He said he was advanced "every element of procedural fairness" and was given the opportunity to respond.