MR Michael Lowry had no part in directing payments in and out of a company in the Isle of Man, the tribunal was told.
Mr Ben Dunne had told the tribunal on Monday that an Isle of Man based company, Badgeworth Ltd, was set up for the sole purpose of paying funds to Mr Lowry, for business services carried out for Dunnes Stores.
Yesterday counsel for Mr Lowry, Mr Donal O'Donnell SC, put it to Mr Dunne that his client had had no part in directing payments in and out of Badgeworth.
He added that a payment of £40,000 in August 1991, from a Dunnes Stores controlled company on the Isle of Man, Tutbury Ltd, was the only one made into Badgeworth Ltd. Mr Dunne agreed that it was.
Mr Dunne also agreed with Mr O'Donnell that his relationship with Mr Lowry was purely a business one, and he did not treat him many differently because he was a politician. There was not a shred of truth in the suggestion that it was a corrupt relationship and that payments he made to Mr Lowry were in return for political favours, he said.
Mr Dunne said bonus payments were an important part of the way Dunnes Stores was run. He treated Mr Lowry's firm, Streamline Enterprises, as he would a senior manager in the company who was running a big area of the business. When Mr Lowry began doing work on the company's refrigeration systems, there was a huge drop in maintenance costs, he added.
Mr O'Donnell also suggested to Mr Dunne that he had said if Mr Lowry's contract with Dunnes Stores worked out, it would make him a wealthy man. Mr Dunne said he might have said it. He had always been of the frame of mind that the real measure of Dunnes Stores doing well was that its suppliers were also doing well.
Mr O'Donnell suggested that when he had said that, Mr Dunne would not have regarded the £50,000 a year bonus payment initially agreed with Mr Lowry as making him wealthy. "You weren't thinking of the £200 Christmas bonus?" he asked. Mr Dunne said he wasn't.
On the extension to Mr Lowry's house, Mr O'Donnell said his client would say that he approached Mr Dunne in connection with his decision to buy a house, and Mr Dunne had said he would support him in that and would arrange for work to be done on the house.
Mr Dunne said he could not recall the exact details. But for the person involved buying a house was a big thing and he would have to accept what Mr Lowry was saying.
Mr O'Donnell said at that time Mr Lowry had reason to expect payments from Mr Dunne as a result of their business arrangement. He was buying a house and wanted to know where he stood. Mr Dunne said that "would be reasonable in my opinion".
Counsel added that at that stage the £50,000 a year, which Mr Dunne had agreed to pay Mr Lowry on top of labour and materials costs, had not materialised. Mr Lowry's business with the company had also expanded and had proved extremely successful. Mr Dunne said that was correct.
He also agreed with Mr O'Donnell that the work done on Mr Lowry's house was not the only such work done by the company. Similar work had been done previously for others.
The initial budget agreed for the extension was £200,000, and the actual cost was a matter which had still not been fully resolved when he left the company in 1993.
Earlier counsel for Faxhill Homes, Mr Ray Fullam, barrister at-law had put it to Mr Dunne that no such price was agreed with the company. Mr Dunne said he recalled a budget of £200,000 but he did not recall a price being agreed with the builders.
Mr Fullam said the total payment received by Faxhill Homes was £395,185. Mr Dunne said that yes, that was the figure he had seen.