Mr Liam Lawlor takes his lengthy fight against the Flood tribunal back to the Supreme Court next Friday in a further effort to fend off the tribunal's investigations into his finances.
The tribunal scored something of a victory yesterday by compelling the West Dublin TD finally to cross its threshold in Dublin Castle. However, his appearance was a brief one, and this battle has a long way to go. Mr Lawlor's appeal takes issue with the period of time over which he is required to produce financial documentation - this may range as far back as 1964 - and the tribunal's demand that he give evidence in public.
Notwithstanding the fact that the High Court soundly rejected his arguments last month, Mr Lawlor still feels his best chance of survival lies across the Liffey in the Four Courts rather than before Mr Justice Flood.
In contrast to his brash performance following the High Court judgment, when he convened a special press conference to answer his critics, Mr Lawlor left Dublin Castle yesterday without making any significant comment. He said simply that he would let the courts deal with the matter.
Further pressure has been placed on the TD by this week's reports on RTE News, which said he had had a business relationship with the publican and amusement arcade-owner, Mr Jim Kennedy. Mr Lawlor has always claimed he had no business links with Mr Kennedy, whom he knew only as a friend and constituent.
Mr Kennedy has been linked to the former Dublin assistant city and county manager, Mr George Redmond, who says he lent Mr Kennedy over £100,000.
Asked to comment on these revelations yesterday, Mr Lawlor said: "We'll let the High Court deal with that."
Yesterday was the deadline for Mr Lawlor to appear before the tribunal and to produce an affidavit of discovery listing the documents he intends to furnish. Under the terms of the High Court order, there was no requirement on him to produce documents just yet, which makes his action in delivering nine files of documents on Monday night all the more interesting.
He braved the floods and rain to deliver the documents personally at 7.45 p.m. on Monday night.
Whether these documents contain the information the tribunal demanded is another matter, and Mr Justice Flood made a point of asking Mr Lawlor's solicitors whether the material provided met the terms of the court order. He was told it did.
With the TD's barrister opting not to seek formal representation, Mr Lawlor was forced to intervene twice from the public gallery, to confirm his presence in the hall and the fact that the documents had been delivered.
With so little time to examine the documents before yesterday's hearing, the tribunal decided to adjourn the matter for a week. But as Mr Justice Flood noted, events may overtake this hearing, as Mr Lawlor intends to seek a stay on the High Court order as part of his Supreme Court appeal next Friday.