An accountant has apologised for supplying a memorandum of intended evidence to the tribunal that contained a "complete misrepresentation" of his involvement in matters concerning Doncaster Rovers Football Club (DRFC) Ltd.
Denis O'Connor, a senior partner with Brophy Butler Thornton and an accountant and adviser to Michael Lowry, agreed that the memorandum of intended evidence he gave the tribunal in 2004 was "not complete" and was "wrong".
Jerry Healy SC, for the tribunal, said the bulk of the documents concerning Doncaster that had been examined during Mr O'Connor's evidence were not available to the tribunal in 2004 when Mr O'Connor supplied his memorandum. "Were your answers [ in the memorandum] given in the knowledge that the tribunal did not have and might never get access to the documents?", Mr Healy asked. Mr O'Connor said: "No."
The tribunal is investigating whether Mr Lowry had any involvement in the 1998 £4.3 million sterling DRFC transaction which Denis O'Brien has said is exclusively his. The tribunal was initially going to inquire into the matter in 2004 but was delayed because of an unsuccessful challenge mounted in the courts by Mr O'Brien. In the interim it gained access to a large amount of new documentation.
Over four days of evidence, Mr O'Connor answered questions concerning his involvement in 2001 and 2002 in disputes linked to the DRFC deal and concerning a Northern Ireland businessman, Kevin Phelan, who was claiming he was owed fees, as well as other disputes linked to Doncaster and other matters.
In his memorandum of intended evidence to the tribunal in 2004, Mr O'Connor repeatedly answered "none" to questions as to his knowledge of and involvement in these disputes and when and how they were resolved.
Mr O'Connor agreed that these answers were incorrect. "I apologise to the tribunal that it's not complete."
"I was on an island in Lake Maggiore on holidays with my wife and I was getting tormented. . . by my solicitor to respond to queries and I recall eventually telling him where to go and being very curt."
Mr Healy pointed out that his response to a direct question as to his knowledge of an aspect of the DRFC dispute was "none". He said this "suggests you had no involvement at all in the matter".
Mr O'Connor: "And it's wrong and I'm apologising for that." Mr Healy said it was "a complete misrepresentation of what we now know from your evidence happened. Isn't that right?" Mr O'Connor: "That's right."
Mr Healy asked if Mr O'Connor had, out of anger, supplied answers that he knew were wrong. Mr O'Connor said: "I can't say that but I know I was angry and frustrated." Asked again if he had supplied the answers knowing they were wrong, Mr O'Connor said: "No."
Mr O'Connor over the past number of days has given evidence of his involvement in a range of matters associated with the DRFC transaction, three of which involved documents which mentioned Mr Lowry in relation to the Doncaster deal. In each instance Mr O'Connor's involvement did not lead to him getting sight of the documents that were at the core of these matters. Mr Healy asked if it was a "coincidence" that in all three cases "you managed to avoid seeing any of those documents?" Mr O'Connor said: "You could look at it that way." He agreed he did not inform Mr Lowry's solicitors about any of these matters, but said he may have mentioned them to Mr Lowry.