The Flood tribunal's proposed public examination of the personal financial affairs of company director Thomas Bailey and his wife, Caroline, would expose their personal financial transactions to public scrutiny, the High Court was told yesterday.
The information sought in connection with a schedule of assets would involve "stripping bare our private affairs in public", Mr Bailey said.
With his wife and Bovale Developments Ltd, of which he is a director, Mr Bailey has taken judicial review proceedings against the tribunal, challenging its right to inquire into their personal financial affairs in public.
The President of the High Court, Mr Justice Morris, is being asked to quash the refusal of the tribunal on February 8th to order that the evidence of the applicants' personal affairs be taken in private.
The Baileys are also seeking a declaration that the hearing of evidence of their personal financial affairs in public represents an interference with their constitutional rights, having regard to the nature of the evidence and its limited relevance, if any, to the tribunal's terms of reference.
Granting leave to seek judicial review of the tribunal's decision earlier this month, Mr Justice Carney made an order restraining the tribunal from proceeding to hear further evidence from the applicants pending the outcome of the proceedings.
In an affidavit, Mr Bailey, of Coolcommon, Batterstown, Co Meath, said he was required to give evidence before the tribunal on November 23rd last. He had been questioned by counsel for the tribunal as to his knowledge of the events leading up to the sale of certain lands. He had been questioned also about the payment of a finder's fee to Mr James Gogarty.
In particular, he had been questioned about a cash payments book. This book, which was referred to as the "kitten book" (a reference to the photograph on the front cover), recorded a series of cash payments made on behalf of Bovale Developments Ltd. It purported to record three payments made to Mr Gogarty. These payments represented part of a series of staggered payments of a finder's fee in connection with the purchase of scheduled lands.
Mr Bailey said his wife had been required to give evidence the day before his evidence. She had been questioned in similar terms. Their evidence had been adjourned to enable the tribunal's legal team to carry out further investigations. Afterwards, his solicitors had received numerous requests from the tribunal solicitor for further documentation and information.
The requests culminated in a letter of January 20th last. In this, information was sought about the intimate financial affairs of himself and his wife. Information sought included a schedule of all assets held by them on July 1st, 1987, and at June 30th 1991; details of accounting treatment applied in producing audited financial statements of Bovale in respect of cheques withdrawn from its bank and lodged in their personal accounts and in respect of cash payments recorded in the "kitten book"; and a formal statement with regard to any other money withdrawn from Bovale from July 1st, 1988, to June 30th, 1991. Mr Bailey had been concerned when he read the letter. In particular, he was concerned that the tribunal was seeking a schedule of assets.
A submission by counsel for the tribunal appeared to concede that the proposed examination would constitute a trawl of the Baileys' private affairs. That submission bore out his concern that the tribunal wished to engage on such a trawl of their financial affairs in circumstances where a proper evidential basis had not been established.
The hearing continues today.