Lawlor contradicted on property deal

TWO property developers have contradicted evidence given to the Planning Tribunal by Liam Lawlor about an under-the-counter deal involving the sale of land by the former TD.

Michael Whelan and John Barrett of Maplewood Homes said claims by Mr Lawlor that they had paid him stg£100,000 in September 2000 as a finder’s fee relating to property in London were completely untrue.

Instead, they insisted the money was given to the former TD, at his request, in part-payment for the purchase of one acre of land adjacent to the politician’s home in Lucan. Both men said it was agreed with Mr Lawlor that the stg£100,000 figure would not be included in the official contract price of IR£690,000.

Their evidence led to Mr Lawlor being issued with a warning by the tribunal chairman, Judge Alan Mahon, about the seriousness of giving evidence he knew to be false and misleading. However, the former Fianna Fáil deputy maintains he received stg£100,000 in return for advice he provided to Lunar Sea Developments, a sister company of Maplewood, about the purchase of a building in Piccadilly.

In evidence to the tribunal earlier this week, Mr Lawlor denied there was any connection between this payment and the IR£690,000 he was given by Maplewood for his Lucan land.

“It is divorced from the matter even though the parties are the same,” said Mr Lawlor at the start of yesterday's evidence. Under repeated questioning by the tribunal, however, he conceded that there was “an overlap” between the payments.

The challenge to Mr Lawlor’s evidence by the two developers could have serious implications for the controversial businessman’s efforts to avoid another term in prison over his alleged failure to co-operate with the inquiry.

Michael Whelan, Maplewood’s main shareholder, told the tribunal he had agreed to buy the land near Mr Lawlor’s home in Lucan for IR£825,000. He explained that Maplewood rejected a request by the former TD to pay IR£200,000 of this sum in cash. However, Mr Whelan said the parties ultimately agreed they would pay Mr Lawlor stg£100,000 through one of their companies that dealt with property in Britain.

Both Mr Whelan and Mr Barrett rejected any suggestion that they had ever engaged Mr Lawlor to advise them about property in London. Asked about the apparent conflict in evidence, Mr Lawlor denied misleading the tribunal and insisted that Mr Barrett, and not him, had suggested the manner in which the stg£100,000 was paid.

Mr Lawlor strenuously denied claims by tribunal barrister, Des O’Neill SC, that his evidence seemed to be “a moveable feast”.

Some of Mr Lawlor’s evidence was so untrue it was laughable, remarked the barrister. “That is your opinion,” replied the former TD.

Mr Lawlor will resume his evidence at Dublin Castle this morning.