Is there a more extraordinary sight in legal circles than that of an eminent senior counsel at the end of his tether? It was almost as though Mr Garrett Cooney SC was in the witness box, rather than asking the questions for Joseph Murphy Structural Engineering.
Here was a lawyer of 40 years' standing complaining that Mr Gogarty's answers were "aggressive" and "inclined to be funny". Mr Gogarty - who, remember, is 81 - was trying to "sabotage" his cross-examination.
Mr Cooney called on Mr Justice Flood to sanction the witness and treat his evidence "with disbelief". And if this didn't happen, he would "seek a remedy elsewhere".
Mr Gogarty theatrically offered to go to Mountjoy, but Mr Cooney was probably thinking of the High Court. Mr Gogarty's lawyer accused his colleague of throwing a tantrum. "If you want to go to the High Court, you are welcome to go now," an exasperated chairman declared.
"What is going on here? Are you going to give us a chance to defend ourselves?" Mr Cooney asked a short time later.
Then it was Mr Justice Flood who was leaving the tribunal at speed, having demanded an apology for this "insulting" remark.
That act drew a round of applause from the ever-swelling public gallery. Everyone hung around for a while until it was apparent that the next act would not come until today.
If this was high farce, what passed before had the elements of a suspense thriller. For almost half an hour, the tribunal was on tenterhooks as Mr Cooney attempted to "out" two more politicians - one Fianna Fail, one Fine Gael - alleged to have received substantial payments from JMSE. The allegation derives from Mr Gogarty, who says he learned of it from information provided by another JMSE executive, Mr Frank Reynolds. The witness passed it on to the journalist Mr Frank Connolly, who wrote about the two senior politicians without naming them in May 1998.
Mr Cooney said the story was "pure fantasy" but to establish it was false he needed to identify the politicians. "Otherwise, you're asking me to conduct my defence with one hand tied behind my back."
"Suppose one of the politicians named was someone clearly above suspicion, such as President Robinson or President McAleese, then that would demonstrate the absurdity of the proposal."
He asked the witness for the names, but Mr John Gallagher SC, for the tribunal, objected. He pointed out that they had not been informed and were not legally represented at the tribunal.
However, after considering the evidence in private, Mr Justice Flood opted to steer clear of that particular minefield. Mr Gogarty's testimony was "hearsay evidence at its worst, verging on gossip" and the names should not be disclosed.
But Mr Gogarty wasn't just relying on hearsay for his allegations. He also gave Mr Connolly a letter which contained a fresh, serious allegation of planning corruption. Written by an architect, Mr Jack Manahan, who was working on behalf of JMSE, it deals with the same lands in Swords for which Mr George Redmond is alleged to have received £15,000 for helping extend the planning permission in 1988.
But this letter dates back to 1982, when the original planning permission was obtained. Through a subsidiary, JMSE successfully obtained permission from the county council to increase the density of houses on the site. This was worth an extra £250,000 to it, equivalent to several million today.
However, a local resident objected to An Bord Pleanala. Mr Manahan's letter continues: "Through certain channels I was able to discover in time the board intended to turn down the planning decision. But I was eventually successful in having this reversed and full planning permission was granted in 1983 for the increased development of 206 houses."
Even if it did happen over 15 years ago, this is the most serious new allegation to emerge during Mr Gogarty's cross-examination. There were several Garda investigations into planning in the 1980s but none of them resulted in a prosecution. Were gardai aware of this letter? Could it be of use to them now? Who are the "channels" referred to?
Mr Gogarty said he tackled Mr Manahan on the meaning of the letter, and was informed of the background. But for now the matter must rest, unless independent evidence is brought to the tribunal.
Mr Cooney's frustration at the end stemmed from his inability to pin the witness down on the exact date of his infamous meeting with Mr Ray Burke, at which at least £30,000 was paid over. Mr Gogarty has said it took place "a few" or "a couple of" days after he received a letter on the matter from the developer Mr Michael Bailey on June 8th, 1989.
Mr Cooney said this was a Thursday. Did he mean two or three days after this date?
Mr Gogarty: "Would you object if I said three or four days and that on Sundays I wouldn't be going on with this kind of skullduggery?"
It was all downhill after that, with Mr Cooney complaining about the lack of dignity of the proceedings and the chairman telling him he had failed to "control" the witness.
As the chairman marched out, Mr Gogarty left the box with a spring in his step, while Mr Cooney reached for his cigarettes. A dull day it was not.