Planning institute committee influenced consultant's report, executive claims at libel trial

High Court Reporters

A former executive director of the Irish Planning Institute (IPI) has claimed in the High Court that senior members at the planning body improperly influenced a report compiled by consultants Ernst & Young (EY) following an investigation of allegations made against her by a colleague.

Under cross-examination during her libel action against the Irish Examiner, Orla Purcell claimed EY was instructed by an IPI oversight committee to make findings that certain allegations against her could be substantiated.

Purcell is suing the Irish Examiner over two January 2023 articles, claiming the publications were defamatory of her.

The subject of the articles, written by journalist Mick Clifford, was the report compiled by EY, following the investigation into allegations made against Purcell by another IPI employee.

It is Purcell’s case that various statements in the articles were defamatory in meaning, including statements that allegedly meant she was “guilty” of “serious misconduct”, “impropriety” and “illegality”.

She also complains of statements that allegedly meant she “wrongfully and/or dishonestly incurred expenditure of €1,500”, and “made several attempts to create a ‘false email trail’”.

Purcell, of Shrewsbury, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4, claims the statements are “false, unbalanced and published maliciously knowing that they were untrue or being reckless as to their truth”.

The Irish Examiner denies these claims and is contesting the case. It claims the articles have a different meaning than that contended by Purcell, and that its pleaded meaning is true.

The Cork-based newspaper also relies on a defence of fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public interest, and a defence of qualified privilege.

Cross-examining Purcell on Wednesday, barrister John Fitzgerald, for the Irish Examiner, put to her that contrary to her oral evidence, “very little if anything” stated in the articles was untrue.

Purcell said she disagreed. She said Michelle Ball, an IPI colleague who made the allegations investigated by EY and described in Clifford’s articles as a whistleblower, was not a whistleblower.

She added that she “didn’t make up” the planning policy. The articles refer to an allegation of “unauthorised attempts to change IPI policy”.

Fitzgerald asked the witness if she felt, as previously stated in her oral evidence, that she felt “unemployable” due to those alleged untruths.

Purcell replied that she did. She also raised an issue with reference in the articles to her purported “unauthorised spending” of €1,500. It is Purcell’s case that she did not engage in any unauthorised spending.

Asked by her counsel, Mark Harty, what allegations she took issue with the Irish Examiner publications, Purcell said the articles “as framed by Mr Clifford ... [it looked] like I was cooking the books”.

She added that the articles insinuated she “was making up policy of my own agenda”.

“Both those insinuations are very damaging to my employment prospects,” she said.

Questioned by Fitzgerald, Purcell agreed that she believed an IPI oversight committee exercised improper influence on the EY report. She agreed that she believed the findings of the report were findings of the oversight committee, rather than EY.

The court previously heard that following the completion of the report, the oversight committee directed Purcell to face a disciplinary procedure to determine if she had been involved in gross misconduct.

Fitzgerald also questioned Purcell about an email she sent to senior IPI member Mary Mac Mahon, in which she described comments made by Judge Richard Humphreys in a 2021 judgment as “simply crazy”.

The judgment related to a case taken over permission granted for an expansion of Intel’s Co Kildare plant.

Purcell said this comment was not her expressing a personal view on a High Court decision. Rather, she said she had received feedback from IPI members unhappy with the judge’s comments, and that her job was to represent and share the views of members.

Purcell later stated that the judgment referred to planners as “generalists”, a comment that could offend those in the profession.

Fitzgerald also put to Purcell that delays to her approval for carer’s leave was not a result of then-IPI president and then-vice-president Conor Norton and Brian Keaney “colluding”, but were caused by delays to Department of Social Protection approval, and other administrative reasons.

Purcell replied, “I suggest you contact Mason Hayes and Curran about that”, referring to the solicitor’s firm then retained by the IPI.

The trial, before Judge Tony O’Connor and a jury, continues.