An independent audit of Mr James Gogarty's financial affairs did not reveal any inconsistency in the evidence given by him to the Flood inquiry, the tribunal chairman indicated yesterday.
Mr Justice Flood highlighted this point in determining whether to accept a submission by Tom and Caroline Bailey that an examination of their personal bank accounts was outside the tribunal's terms of reference.
He was satisfied, he said, that the inquiry into these accounts did fall within the terms of reference.
It had been emphatically denied by Mr Gogarty, the chairman said, that he had been paid a sum of £162,000 between October 1989 and July 1996 as a "finder's fee" by the Baileys.
The audit of his financial affairs had not contradicted this evidence.
The tribunal had also embarked on an inquiry into the financial affairs of Bovale Developments, its directors and their wives.
Evidence had already been given by Caroline and Tom Bailey in relation to payments received by them from the accounts of Bovale.
"The intended examination of the witnesses would seek to examine further details in relation to such accounts and transactions with a view to establishing whether there is any evidence of such payments having been made."
A consideration of the Baileys' bank accounts was therefore necessary, the chairman said, and must include the time periods during which, it was alleged, such payments were made.
The tribunal had endeavoured to limit the encroachment into the private affairs of the witnesses, he said, "by addressing the issues in correspondence".
The witnesses had not responded to the queries raised, and their counsel, Mr Colm Allen SC, had indicated that they "would not provide the information sought in the manner suggested by the tribunal."
It had been urged that the inquiry into the private matters of the Baileys might be conducted in private. The Tribunal of Inquiries (Evidence) Act, however, specifically provided that the evidence be heard in public unless the public interest dictated otherwise.
He did not believe there were sufficient grounds open to him to conduct the proceedings in private, in the public interest, the chairman concluded.
Mr Allen told the tribunal that it was his clients' intention to seek a judicial inquiry of the High Court, on foot of Mr Justice Flood's determination.
He asked for 15 minutes to consult Mr and Ms Bailey on the remedies open to them, but the chairman declined.
The scheduled examination by the Flood tribunal of Ms Caroline Bailey on matters indicated in a letter to her solicitors, dated January 20th, went ahead yesterday, in spite of protests from her lawyers that this would undermine the judicial review proceedings the Baileys intend to bring.