Mr Liam Lawlor is now saying he is prepared to give evidence to the Flood tribunal and to produce documents to it, but only as long as these hearings are in private.
This was the surprise development on the second and final day of the High Court case brought by the tribunal against Mr Lawlor. It marks a significant narrowing of the stance taken by the Dublin West TD, who is contesting two summonses issued against him by the tribunal.
Last year Mr Lawlor argued successfully in the Supreme Court that the tribunal could not compel him to attend for private interview with tribunal lawyers who are investigating the allegations against him. The difference this time is that he is now saying he will attend for a private hearing, as long as this is chaired by the sole member of the tribunal, Mr Justice Flood.
Mr John Rogers SC, for Mr Lawlor, called on the High Court yesterday to "adjust" the tribunal's orders so that the hearing involving Mr Lawlor would take place in private.
Mr Rogers has put forward two other arguments in support of his case. The tribunal's orders were "over-wide", he argued, and it had no jurisdiction to make the orders - instead, it should have gone to the High Court to seek an order.
The tribunal had "slipped a gear" and followed a "completely wrong procedure".
The backbone of Mr Rogers's argument is the case taken by Mr Charles Haughey against the Moriarty tribunal. Mr Haughey succeeded in having several tribunal orders quashed on the basis that they were too general, a decision that was confirmed by the Supreme Court.
The difficulty for this side of the argument is that the courts have since revisited this area of law. The developers Michael and Tom Bailey sought earlier this year to resist orders by the Flood tribunal to produce their financial records on the basis that this order was too general and would intrude on their personal affairs.
The High Court rejected their case.
The Baileys appealed to the Supreme Court and there took a similar tack to that followed by Mr Lawlor yesterday. The matter should first be heard in private, the Baileys argued, and only matters deemed relevant should later be heard in public.
Mr George Redmond also went to the High Court in 1998 to seek to have the allegations against him heard in private. He was unsuccessful.
Mr Frank Clarke SC, for the tribunal, referred to the Bailey case in his closing submission yesterday, adding that it was "late in the day" for Mr Lawlor to be arguing for a private hearing.
Mr Rogers responded by arguing that the Bailey case was "completely different" from that of Mr Lawlor. The allegations against the Baileys were already in the public domain because the man making them, Mr James Gogarty, had begun giving evidence, he said. This was not the case with Mr Lawlor.
But while it is true that Mr Lawlor has not been named in the current hearings before the tribunal, he is believed to be the unnamed "Mr Big" referred to by the lobbyist, Mr Frank Dunlop, and he has cropped up in some of the evidence given by Mr George Redmond.
If Mr Lawlor wins his case and is allowed give evidence in private, he is certain to be followed by others who would prefer to shun the limelight. If he loses, and is compelled to produce his financial records and to appear in Dublin Castle, the tribunal is likely to take some time sifting through the material before calling him as a witness.
Mr Justice Smyth reserved judgment to next Tuesday.