Planning tribunal finding of non co-operation against well known publican quashed

Judicial review - challenge to decision of the respondents of the 29th January, 2103, to make a finding that the applicant had failed to co-operate with the Tribunal and/or knowingly gave false or misleading information to the Tribunal in the course of its hearings - applicant a publican and a witness in one module of the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments, ("the Tribunal") conducted into certain alleged payments to politicians or others with a decision making role in planning matters - Tribunal inquired into and make findings and recommendations in regard to the identity of all recipients of payments made to political parties or members of either House of the Oireachtas or members or officials of the Dublin local authority or other public officials named - inquired whether the persons so receiving the monies were influenced directly or indirectly by the offer or receipt of any such payments or benefits - finding of non-cooperation was made and communicated to Mr. Chawke on 29th January 2013 - Chairperson proposed to make an order that Mr. Chawke was entitled to 30% of his costs - applicant seeks order of certiorari quashing the decision of 29th January 2013, on the grounds that the decision was made in breach of fair procedures and/or natural and constitutional justice - Court of the view that the process which led to the decision that to Mr. Chawke was not a cooperating witness, was not arrived at following the affording to Mr. Chawke of fair procedure - Mr. Chawke had no inkling from anything that had occurred in his engagement with the Tribunal before the final Report was published in March, 2012 that his version of events was likely to be disbelieved in substance - he had no opportunity to advance evidence or test the evidence that lead the Tribunal to its findings of fact - Tribunal finding that he was not a cooperating witness was arrived at by a process of deductive reasoning from the premise that his evidence was not truthful, as there was not present any of the vitiating factors, such as frailty of memory, that might have allowed it to conclude that he had not knowingly been untruthful - arguments by Mr. Chawke after the final Report issued could not have changed the finding of untruth, nor how it was subsequently characterised - application in the adjudicative process of the rules of fair procedure cannot be achieved by a process of mere deductive reasoning, as were it such, the results of the reasoning process would be inevitable or would flow inexorably from a first premise, such that the fairness would be illusory - the process of adjudication by the Tribunal which resulted in the finding challenged in these proceedings was deductive in that sense and must fail for breach of fairness.