Mr Justice Flood will need the wisdom of Solomon if he is to avoid further delays and even a High Court action before the former minister for foreign affairs, Mr Ray Burke, can begin giving evidence.
The chairman's ruling this morning will have to take account of two full-frontal attacks on the manner in which the tribunal is conducting business, which were made yesterday by lawyers for Mr Burke and for the developer Mr Michael Bailey.
Both parties are accusing the tribunal of a fundamental lack of fairness for proceeding with Mr Burke's evidence when the witness had not been told of the accusations he faces.
The rule cited, that an accused person is entitled to know the accusations against him and to have sight of the evidence, is one of the oldest and most sacred in the Bar, and one that Mr Justice Flood will ignore at his peril.
Once again, however, the tribunal was partly the author of its own misfortune. Its failure to distribute the book of evidence relating to Mr Burke to Mr Bailey's lawyers was seized upon quickly by Mr Colm Allen SC, for Mr Bailey. This mistake alone would have necessitated an adjournment without the powerful legal arguments made by Mr Allen and Mr Joe Finnegan SC, for Mr Burke.
"The banana skin was there and we slipped on it," a rueful chairman was forced to concede. So it was that the long-awaited day of Mr Burke's appearance turned into a morning of anticipation, legal wrangling and, ultimately, anti-climax.
Mr Burke, relaxed and even ebullient in his double-breasted suit and trademark glasses, slipped into the hall in Dublin Castle after 11 a.m. He sat in the back row of the crowded public gallery, then moved up to sit alongside his legal team. His solicitor brought Mr Burke's legal binders up to the witness-box, but the man himself never got to give evidence as the chairman adjourned proceedings before lunch.
The reason Mr Burke's lawyers called a halt has to do with the areas the tribunal intends to cover in its examination of the former minister. These appear to be far wider than anyone expected.
Mr Finnegan says they go "very far outside" the matters that should be the concern of the tribunal. The result, he claimed, could be to undermine the findings of the tribunal, even to set these at naught.
To avoid media leaks, the book of evidence was distributed to the legal teams only at the last moment. Because of the secrecy, it is hard to know whether the evidence could have this effect. Mr Finnegan said the contents include personal details about Mr Burke, and that it also impinges on the good name of others.
If this information were revealed, it would appear in every newspaper and would be the subject of widespread conjecture, he argued. Other witnesses could be called, but this might never happen, or not for a very long time, and in the meantime the story would circulate in the media against Mr Burke's good name.
Mr Allen's argument took a more familiar tack. His clients were entitled to a full account of the allegations they faced, he said. Otherwise, they might not be in a position to properly cross-examine Mr Burke.
In addition, the planning history of the lands at the centre of the tribunal should be placed on the record. Not to do so was "putting the cart before the horse".
Mr Allen had already begun the day in feisty form, by demanding of the tribunal the questions it intended to put to the first witness of the day, Mr Bill Barrett of Anglo-Irish Bank. In a warm-up routine for his later intervention, Mr Allen said he wanted to avoid "rabbits being pulled out of hats" and he lost no time in showing his anger with the chairman.
"You ruled that Mr Gogarty must be treated with extreme courtesy and you then allowed him to heap vilification, obscenities and abuse on the members of the legal profession on this side of the table, and you smiled with members of the audience who found it funny," Mr Allen told Mr Justice Flood.
The chairman declined to respond to that remark but throughout the morning the needle between the judge and his former apprentice was apparent. Mr Barrett, now group banking director of Anglo-Irish Bank, eventually made it to the stand, where he was asked about a withdrawal made in November 1989 by one of his clients, Mr Bailey.
Mr Bailey came to the bank at short notice seeking to obtain £230,000 as a deposit for the purchase of the Murphy lands in north Dublin. He also wanted £50,000 immediately in cash.
Mr Barrett made a note of the request, and agreed to supply the money. He couldn't recall what the cash was for, but he agreed it may have been needed to pay a "finder's fee" on the land.
His note referred to "£50k in cash (of £150k)" but again Mr Barrett couldn't recollect what this was supposed to mean.
This transaction is central to Mr Bailey's case. He maintains the £50,000 was paid to Mr Gogarty, and that two further payments of £50,000 were planned. Such an explanation might account for the £50,000 cheque Mr Gogarty got from Mr Bailey, which he claims was given to buy his silence on the money allegedly paid to Mr Burke.
However, Mr Barrett said yesterday he couldn't remember Mr Gogarty's name being mentioned at the time of the withdrawal. His evidence yesterday confirmed that a media leak earlier this year was wrong when it claimed that the bank documents refer to Mr Gogarty. The only name that appeared on the note Mr Barrett made at the time was Mr Joseph Murphy.