Businessman and former Fianna Fáil fundraiser Des Richardson has lost his legal battle to challenge findings of the Mahon Tribunal.
However, Justice Elizabeth Dunne said she accepted as a matter of fact there was a mistake in the tribunal findings relating to Mr Richardson and the assertion that he claimed not to have any knowledge of the source of IR£39,000.
Justice Dunne said the error of fact was replicated in another paragraph of the findings, which stated that the tribunal found it incredible that Mr Richardson was unable to account to the tribunal for the origins of the funds in an account.
Justice Dunne said this appeared to be a mistake of fact.
She said it was not the function of the court in these proceedings to correct errors of fact made by the tribunal.
She added that this was a case where there was a mistake of fact on one issue in respect of the findings of the tribunal relating to Mr Richardson and she and no doubt the tribunal would be happy to correct the error.
Mr Richardson had claimed the tribunal findings were "wholly erroneous" in that he was never asked during examination by tribunal counsel to account for the origins of the funds in the account known as the Roevin account.
The businessman gave evidence over several days to the Mahon Tribunal in respect of its investigations into the finances of former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern.
In the court proceedings, the tribunal had argued Mr Richardson failed to make a full and frank disclosure of material and relevant facts when seeking to challenge its findings and that his case should be dismissed.
The tribunal had heard that in 1993 funds from a company called Roevin Ireland Ltd were used to purchase a bank draft paid to Mr Ahern.
Mr Richardson was examined extensively about his involvement with Roevin over two days of the public sittings.
In his proceedings, Mr Richardson, of Serpentine Avenue, Dublin 4, wanted two sections of the final report of the Tribunal of Inquiry in Certain Planning Matters and Payments concerning him quashed.
In her ruling, Justice Dunne said the case was more in the nature of a challenge to "part findings" of the tribunal.
The manner in which it had been done by Mr Richardson, she said, gave force to the argument that what was at the heart of the application was an error of fact and an error within jurisdiction which was not amenable to judicial review.
Justice Dunne said this was not a case where it could be said Mr Richardson had placed all his cards on the table in relation to the application to the court.
The description given by Mr Richardson in relation to soliciting funds from Padraic O'Connor of NCB Stockbrokers and in relation to the manner in which the sum of IR£5,000 was obtained to purchase the bank draft, she said, did not represent fully the findings of the tribunal in respect of those issues.
Justice Dunne also said the affidavit of Mr Richardson was less than a full and frank disclosure of the findings of the tribunal on the issues.
She disagreed with submissions made on Mr Richardson's behalf that certain matters were not relevant.
Justice Dunne said she would not go so far as to say that the omissions on the part of Mr Richardson were such as to have necessarily resulted in the court refusing to grant relief by way of judicial review.