Mr Liam Lawlor is to take a High Court challenge to the tribunal. He contends that questioning about buildings or lands with which he had been associated in the Czech Republic is not relevant.
Mr John Gallagher SC, for the tribunal, began yesterday's hearing by asking about Prague properties in which Mr Lawlor had any interest, and asking for addresses.
At this point Mr Ray Delahunt, counsel for Mr Lawlor, said he would be seeking a ruling regarding the applicability of the questions.
Mr Gallagher said they were potential sources of income. Evidence had disclosed that Mr Lawlor received £600,000 from Prague and that was relevant in the context of the inquiry.
The chairman said it was his ruling that the evidence of the physical buildings related to documents referred to in the affidavits of discovery. They were relevant.
Mr Delahunt said: "My instructions, sir, in light of your ruling, are to bring an appropriate application before the High Court in relation to the applicability of that particular evidence."
The chairman told him he could do whatever he wanted, that that was his affair.
Mr Gallagher said to Mr Lawlor: "Yesterday I asked if you would identify the addresses of the various structures of buildings or lands with which you have been associated in Prague. Would you mind doing that now, please?"
Mr Lawlor: "Mr Chairman, it's my contention that I will not provide this information to the tribunal. I have provided yesterday all the financial information that I received, I have nothing to hide whatsoever.
"Physical buildings in Prague and the Czech Republic are property projects that I have various interests in and I don't see them as coming within the terms of reference.
"While I appreciate your position, chairman, that you have to interpret the terms of reference, I have an opinion on them as a member of the Oireachtas which set up this tribunal.
"I will provide any financial information I can relative to my bank account, which I've already disclosed, but as regards the physical buildings in the Czech Republic, I see them as having no relevance to this tribunal and I propose as outlined by my counsel to pursue the matter as outlined." Mr Gallagher asked if he was refusing to answer the question.
Mr Lawlor said: "I am seeking judicial review of the fact that physical buildings in the Czech Republic have any relevance to the tribunal."
Mr Gallagher, after asking the question several times more, said Mr Lawlor had an obligation in law to answer the questions and if he failed to do so certain consequences would flow. Mr Lawlor replied that he was well aware of the penalties.
The chairman said: "I think the better thing to do is to note there is this failure to co-operate with the tribunal and in due course of time I may or may not implement my powers in that regard. At the moment I'm prepared to pass from it if he wants to take such proceedings, and I'm in no way curtailing a citizen's rights."
He was reserving his position until "an appropriate occasion arises".
The question was not to be withdrawn.