Gogarty thought £1m a `realistic' expectation for pension benefit

Mr James Gogarty was promised the benefit of about £1 million as a pension by Mr Joe Murphy snr because of his long service and "vital role" in the development of the Murphy business, the Flood tribunal has been told.

Reading from an affidavit filed by Mr Gogarty in an action against the Murphy group, Mr John Gallagher SC, for the tribunal, said Mr Gogarty knew this was a realistic figure for Mr Murphy to offer, as Mr Murphy "had accumulated very considerable funds in the Isle of Man and Switzerland".

In the affidavit sworn on January 19th, 1990, Mr Gogarty also claimed, however, that the Murphy group had not taken any steps since the previous October to effect his pension, which had eventually been agreed at a £300,000 contribution, a five-year consultancy at £23,500 a year and other smaller considerations.

He was worried, he claimed, that the group was in the process of liquidating its assets within the jurisdiction.

Mr Gogarty outlined the Murphy group assets, which included lands in north Co Dublin, the Gaiety Theatre and companies within the State which he claimed were either sold or in the process of being sold.

Mr Gogarty said his opinion that the proceeds of these sales would be sent outside the jurisdiction was reinforced by a conversation he had in or about April 1989 with Mr Murphy, in the Bonnington Hotel, London.

"He stated he would be trying to remove as much of his money out of Ireland as he could, because of his fear that certain legal proceedings in which he was involved outside of the jurisdiction might go against him."

Mr Gogarty also alleged that on December 12th, 1989, Mr Roger Copsey, a director of JMSE, had referred to a "monumental exposure" to tax which the companies would suffer as a result of the sales.

"Mr Copsey went on to outline a scheme which would avoid exposure to these tax liabilities . . . and in any event thought that the Revenue Commissioners would not be likely to examine the scheme too closely because of their existing burden of work."

Even if a detailed examination was undertaken, Mr Gogarty alleged, Mr Copsey had said there would still be time for "the removal of the remaining assets of the companies from this jurisdiction and for the appointment of a liquidator over these companies".