It never looked winnable, but the speed with which the Supreme Court dispatched Mr Liam Lawlor's case against the tribunal still came as a surprise.
The five-member court listened all morning to the arguments put by Mr John Rogers SC, for Mr Lawlor, then took a 15-minute recess. When they returned, the judges opted to dispense with submissions from the tribunal side and immediately and decisively rejected the West Dublin TD's case.
Mr Lawlor will now have to present himself before the Flood tribunal at a date to be determined by it within the next few weeks, before giving his main evidence, probably in the new year.
Yesterday's defeat, coming on top of last month's failure in the High Court, has also left him with a near-six-digit legal bill, even before he comes before the tribunal. Costs for both cases were awarded against him. Mr Lawlor, who is currently staying with his sons in the US, is unlikely to have a good Thanksgiving weekend.
Once again the courts have affirmed the rights of the tribunal to conduct inquiries as they see fit. The Chief Justice, Mr Justice Keane, specifically referred to the "significant measure of discretion" which the tribunals must enjoy. The whole point of tribunals, set up to inquire into matters of "urgent public importance", is that they take place in public. Ultimately, Mr Lawlor's battle against the tribunal came down to a single issue, the right to give his evidence in private, at least initially.
If he had won, it is unlikely the tribunal would ever have completed its work. Dozens of potential witnesses would have claimed the same right, demanding their evidence be sifted through in private before any was brought forward for public scrutiny.
This is what should have happened in the case of Mr Frank Dunlop, Mr Rogers argued yesterday. But, as Mr Justice Geoghegan asked of counsel, would we have gathered the same amount of information from Mr Dunlop about rezoning in Dublin if his evidence had been taken in private?
Was this not the tribunal balancing the right to privacy with the importance of getting to the truth? the judge asked.
Mr Rogers had earlier claimed that if Mr Lawlor had to give evidence in public, this could jeopardise his own good name and that of others he named. But as we saw in the case of Mr Dunlop, the tribunal asked the witness to write the names of people on a sheet of paper rather than naming them aloud.
Mr Rogers said this was "an extraordinary way to conduct affairs". Mr Dunlop was called "out of sync". There had been "extraordinary pressure" on Mr Dunlop to the extent that he became "physically sick".