Ms Caroline Bailey, the Bovale Developments book-keeper, could not explain how company records that were the subject of a Flood tribunal order of discovery, came to be destroyed in a fire, four months after the final date they were due to be submitted to the inquiry.
The records, relating to the period covered by the tribunal's terms of reference, were lodged in a container along with builders' materials on a site in Finglas which had been burnt or destroyed by water. The documentation, which included a key cash payments journal, was housed along with workmen's overalls and tools.
"Were they locked or protected in some way?" Mr Des O'Neill SC, for the tribunal, inquired. "Could anyone open a particular box and familiarise themselves with confidential information?" It was possible, said Ms Bailey.
"Why in July 1998 was documentation relevant to the accounts of the company for the year 1989 still in a container in Finglas and not before the tribunal?"
"I don't know."
Was she aware the tribunal had made an order on January 27th, 1998, against Bovale to discover before February 17th all audited and unaudited data including management and other accounts from 1984?
Mr Allen, for the Baileys, intervened to suggest such matters had been "set aside by the Supreme Court". Mr O'Neill rejected this. The questions, he said, did not relate to the Baileys personally, but to the position of Bovale Developments at July 30th, 1998.
"My question is why it is on July 1st, 1998, the documents which seem to me to be covered by the order made in January 1998 were still in a container and why they were not gathered with a view to furnishing them to the tribunal," he said.
Ms Bailey was the company's book-keeper and knew where the "audited, unaudited and other" accounts should be, he added.
It was "unfair and unwarranted" that she should be questioned in this way, insisted Mr Allen. Mr O'Neill's line of questioning could "validly be pursued" with the directors. One of these, Mr Tom Bailey, is Ms Bailey's husband. "To suggest an employee should be queried about why orders of a tribunal should be complied with is not fair," he said.
The chairman ruled that Mr Allen's interjection was "wholly unwarranted" and Mr O'Neill continued his questioning.