The Flood tribunal has heard about a conflict of evidence between former Fine Gael leader Mr John Bruton and the lobbyist Mr Frank Dunlop.
Mr Dunlop says he told Mr Bruton about an approach made to him by a Fine Gael councillor, the late Tom Hand, who is alleged to have sought a £250,000 bribe in return for his vote on a rezoning motion. The two men met at a social function in the Red Cow Inn in the early 1990s.
However, Mr Breffni Gordon, barrister, for Cllr Tony Fox, said Mr Bruton had "refuted" this account of Mr Dunlop.
Mr Bruton had said it was not an accurate, truthful or reliable statement. It followed that either Mr Bruton was telling lies or Mr Dunlop was. Mr Dunlop agreed there was conflict about the content of their discussions, but there was agreement that the meeting had taken place.
Mr Gordon said it was clear the witness was "taking on" Mr Bruton regarding the content of the meeting they had.
Mr Dunlop alleges that Mr Fox, a Fianna Fáil councillor on Dún Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council, received two payments totalling £7,000 in connection with the rezoning of the lands in Carrickmines. These are the subject of the tribunal's current module of investigations.
Mr Fox denies he received any money from Mr Dunlop for any purpose. He has told the tribunal in a statement that he neither solicited, received nor was offered money from anyone in return for planning matters.
Yesterday, he was ordered to explain why he failed to provide a number of documents to the tribunal until Mr Gordon produced them during cross-examination yesterday. He was also required to guarantee he had no more relevant material in his possession.
Mr Justice Flood ordered Mr Fox's lawyers to file an affidavit of discovery after they produced four letters from 1989/90 relating to contacts between Mr Dunlop and Mr Fox. These concerned a development in south Dublin which was proposed by one of Mr Dunlop's clients, an English-registered company.
Mr Gordon said the documents had only come to light last Wednesday.
Mr Dunlop said he had made representations about the project to Mr Fox, who had behaved honourably in the matter. Mr Fox had effected a good relationship with local residents through his status in the community. He had found Mr Fox to be "reliable".
Mr Dunlop said he suggested to the client that they make a political donation to Mr Fox during the 1991 local election campaign, but the company said it was not its policy to do this. He later made a donation personally to Mr Fox.
Mr Gordon said this legitimate contact between Mr Dunlop and Mr Fox was going on at the same time as Mr Dunlop claimed to have "illegitimate" contact with other politicians.
Mr Gordon continues his cross-examination of the witness on Tuesday.
