There were heated exchanges between the chairman of the tribunal and counsel for the Murphy group at yesterday's hearing.
Mr Garrett Cooney SC, for the Murphy Group, and Mr Colm Allen SC, for the Baileys and Bovale Ltd, objected to Mr James Gogarty being asked what his understanding was of the letter he received from Mr Michael Bailey dated June 8th, 1989.
The chairman, Mr Justice Flood, said his understanding was that Mr Gogarty was using the letter as an aide-memoire. He added that he did not see any great point to this objection.
Mr Cooney said: "Well, the point of the objection is this, Mr chairman, when Mr Gogarty is asked a broad general point about what is his understanding, he uses it as an opportunity to make a speech."
The chairman responded: "He is not the only person who is doing that," to which Mr Cooney said: "Mr chairman, are you referring to me by any chance?"
The chairman said: "I am," and Mr Cooney said: "Would you give some examples to support that contention?" The chairman then said: "Mr Cooney, I have collected your collective works on the transcript and some day I will come back to deal with them."
Mr Cooney replied: "No, Mr chairman, you have now made a suggestion here I emphatically reject and if you make a suggestion, Mr chairman, you have an obligation to back it up by reference. I will not tolerate that sort of comment being made by you about the manner I represent my clients unless you can stand over it."
He said it was not good enough to say to a barrister who was making an objection on behalf of his clients that he had done the same thing. "That is not fair, it's not good enough, Mr chairman. It's no way to conduct a tribunal, with respect," Mr Cooney said.
Mr John Gallagher SC, for the tribunal, asked for a ruling. The chairman said what Mr Gogarty did as a result of the letter and how he reacted to it was undoubtedly within Mr Gallagher's province and Mr Gogarty's.