Mr Michael Bailey made an offer of £1.9 million for the Murphy lands in 1989 which was rejected. But yesterday he denied that he had made an offer of £2.8 million a few weeks later.
He had been asked about a letter dated June 8th, 1989, sent by him to Mr James Gogarty, which set out proposals, including that Mr Bailey would be given a 50 per cent share in the ownership of the lands in exchange for procuring planning permission. The letter is included in the terms of reference of the tribunal.
Yesterday Mr Bailey said that this letter was headed "Proposals for discussion" and this was a discussion document. It was not a letter of offer.
Mr Desmond O'Neill SC, for the tribunal, said the letter concerned the 726 acres of land in north Co Dublin. Before it was sent there were a number of failed attempts to resolve a satisfactory price for the lands.
Counsel said Mr Bailey offered £1.9 million in April/May 1989, but then by the date of the letter he was prepared to discuss a figure of £2.868 million for the 726 acres.
"Untrue," said Mr Bailey.
Mr O'Neill asked him if that was not what the letter said, that there were six lots totalling 726 acres.
Mr Bailey said he always took it that it was 720 acres.
Counsel put it to him that the sum total of the amounts offered on the basis of the proposals in the letter amounted to £2.868 million. Did he dispute the calculation?
"I never did the calculation in that letter," said Mr Bailey.
Mr O'Neill said that presumably he knew what he was offering. Mr Bailey said he did not believe he ever did that calculation on that land.
Counsel asked if he was saying he was learning this for the first time. Surely before he ever put pen to paper he had done his calculations? "You have asked me for my answer and I have given you my answer. This is a proposal for discussion and it doesn't matter if there was £20 million on it or £2 million," Mr Bailey said.
The chairman intervened: "Mr Bailey, are you telling me that you made a proposal to purchase land without knowing how many acres you were purchasing? Is that true? You were offering to buy a plot of land the size of which you did not know?"
Mr Bailey replied: "Mr Chairman, even to this day I don't believe the exact acreage of land has ever been calculated."
He accepted the total of the acres in the letter was 726.
When asked about the figures, Mr Bailey said: "When I put that offer to Mr Gogarty it was totally rejected. This discussion here was totally rejected by Mr Gogarty. The offer of £1.9 million was for the outright purchase of the lands."
Mr O'Neill asked if any of the other two proposals in the letter involved a shared ownership. He was talking about a 726-acre acquisition or an amended figure of a 686-acre acquisition.
Did both of those involve the entire Murphy interest being sold to him, in the first instance at £2.868 million and in the second instance at £2.808 million?
Mr Bailey said that was for a proposed extended closing.
Mr O'Neill said all of them were for outright purchases of the land but the closing date varied. Was that what he was saying?
"Yes, by a major amount," Mr Bailey said.
Mr O'Neill said so it was for that reason that there was a variation between £1.9 million and a potential £2.86 million because of variation in closing. Was that his evidence?
"I never offered £2.8 million," Mr Bailey said.
Counsel asked what the purpose was of mentioning £2.8 million at all if it was not his intention to make an offer.
"They were proposals for discussion leading to avail of the best opportunity for our company which we felt at the time was the better thing to do," Mr Bailey said.
This was not an offer, he said. It was not a letter of offer. He made three proposals because if one proposal was refused, then they might look at the second and maybe the third.