In football terms, you'd call it a thrashing; on three occasions in the High Court yesterday Mr Justice Smyth rejected the arguments made by Mr Liam Lawlor against the tribunal's orders for him to appear before it and to produce his financial records.
For the tribunal lawyers, it was their finest day in court, a stunning affirmation of the right of Mr Justice Flood to conduct his investigations as he sees fit. Sweeter still that the defeated party was the very person who successfully challenged the tribunal in the courts last year and has repeatedly questioned its work.
There was in Mr Justice Smyth's 45-minute judgment nothing of the ambivalence of other decisions that have sent lawyers hurtling to the appeal courts. Mr Lawlor would have to appear before the tribunal, as summonsed, within two weeks, the judge decided.
He would have to swear an affidavit of discovery covering documents ranging back to 1977 (when he was first elected to the Dail) within a week, and produce these documents within another week. He has about a month to produce further records going back to 1974 (the year he first stood for election) and, if the tribunal wants them, he will also have to hand over records as far back as 1964 (when he was 20).
And there was a sting in the tail; Mr Justice Smyth awarded costs for the two-day hearing - estimated at over £50,000 - against Mr Lawlor.
His comment on Mr Lawlor's approach to correspondence with the tribunal also provides an apt summary of the TD's overall attitude to the matter: "Mr Lawlor chose to rely on the letter of the law rather than its spirit."
The tribunal was "driven" to seek orders against Mr Lawlor, said Mr Justice Smyth, who had earlier referred to the "apparent lack of full and frank disclosure" in the TD's correspondence.
Mr John Rogers SC, for Mr Lawlor, had argued that the orders were not clear. The judge rejected this; the context was clear from the correspondence that had passed between the TD and the tribunal over the preceding two years.
Mr Rogers also argued that the orders were too wide in time and scope. But as Mr Justice Smyth said, it was Mr Lawlor who first mentioned dates as far back as the mid-1970s, when he first stood for election and first met Mr Frank Dunlop. He had also been given the opportunity to make submissions on the proposed orders but had not done so.
Mr Justice Smyth also rejected Mr Lawlor's argument that the court should direct his evidence be held in private. But, in perhaps the only chink of light on a dark day for the Dublin West TD, the judge added that it was up to the tribunal to decide on whether to hear evidence in private.
Mr Justice Smyth noted that Mr Lawlor told The Irish Times earlier this month he had "no intention" of complying with the tribunal's order to attend. This was several days before his solicitors informed the tribunal of this fact.
After the tribunal opened its correspondence with Mr Lawlor, the TD complained at this ventilation of private matters. But, as the judge pointed out, if this hadn't come out in the tribunal, it would have been revealed in the court.
Pointing out that Mr Lawlor was a man with over 30 years of experience in public life, Mr Justice Smyth quoted Edmund Burke: "Those who would carry on great public schemes must be proof against the worst fatiguing delays, the most mortifying disappointments, the most shocking insults, and worst of all, the presumptuous judgment of the ignorant upon their designs."
The Lawlor saga still has a long way to go. Mr Lawlor has already claimed he gave the tribunal all the information he had on his bank accounts. He also says he hasn't retained information on his company interests. Even with this judgment, the tribunal will have little to go on in its investigation of Mr Lawlor's activities.