The "bung" allegedly sought by a former assistant Dublin city and county manager, Mr George Redmond, in return for planning favours was worth about £15,000, according to the evidence given by Mr James Gogarty at the planning tribunal yesterday.
Mr Gogarty said Mr Redmond was expecting 10 per cent of the savings expected to accrue to Joseph Murphy Structural Engineering in return for sorting out its planning difficulties on a site in Swords, Co Dublin.
A levy of £122,460 was imposed on JMSE when it obtained planning permission in 1983 to build 206 houses on 22 acres it owned at Forest Road in Swords. Because of objections and other reasons, the company was slow to develop the site and, five years later, the planning permission was dangerously close to expiring.
According to Mr Gogarty, Mr Redmond said the levy would "more than double" if the company had to apply for new planning permission. But Mr Redmond had "some mechanism" to overcome these problems, he said.
Mr Gogarty also alleged that Mr Redmond:
prepared the letter which a JMSE subsidiary was to send to Dublin County Council in order to avoid paying any extra levy.
asked Mr Gogarty if JMSE "had any painters to do a job on his house".
believed he had an agreement with an executive of JMSE to work as a consultant for the company after taking early retirement.
Mr Gogarty's evidence is that he was introduced to Mr Redmond by the developer, Mr Michael Bailey. He also said Mr Redmond "highly recommended" Mr Bailey and his firm.
But even at this stage, before Mr Gogarty has finished with his allegations concerning Mr Redmond, it is clear there is a large gulf between the accounts of the two men. Mr Frank Callanan SC, for Mr Gogarty, said there was an "immense conflict" in the two versions.
Mr Gogarty and Mr Redmond differ on who introduced them, when they met, who was present at their meetings and, crucially, what the point of their discussions about the Forest Road lands was.
In two unusual interventions yesterday, Mr Redmond defended himself against the allegations made by the witness. His legal team was absent, but enough of Mr Redmond's statement to the tribunal was read out during questioning to provide a strong indication of his defence.
The core of this was that he had nothing to do with planning. "I had limited powers and they did not include planning," the 74-year-old declared.
"Gobbledegook!" retorted Mr Gogarty (81) from the witness box. "If he wanted to not be involved the man should have told me, `look, you should go to the planning department and the drainage department, the road department and the sewerage department,' and we wouldn't be here today."
As Mr Gogarty tells it, he was "doing the bidding" of his Guernsey-based boss, Mr Joseph Murphy. As a result, his circumstances were "especial", even "questionable".
Mr Murphy put him in contact with Mr Bailey, who arranged the first meeting with Mr Redmond in 1988 within 24 hours. Mr Gogarty explained his problems with the land.
If the planning permission ran out, there was no guarantee new permission would be granted. In the case of Forest Road, there were possible difficulties with traffic hazards. And even if new permission was given, the attached levies, which local authorities impose in order to recoup part of the cost of providing essential services such as water and sewerage, could be greatly increased.
A short time later, according to Mr Gogarty's account, a second meeting was arranged, again in Mr Redmond's office in O'Connell Street. This time, he says Mr Joseph Murphy jnr attended.
Mr Redmond and Mr Murphy jnr both say the latter man was not present. This is similar to Mr Murphy's defence in the case of the meeting in Mr Ray Burke's house, which Mr Murphy also denies attending.
Mr Gogarty says Mr Redmond produced a letter from the JMSE subsidiary to a county council official. This formed the basis for the letter typed up and sent by the company. But Mr Gogarty says he never knew or met the official named in the letter.
In the letter, the company agreed to pay the old levy in return for agreement this would not be increased when a fresh planning application was made on the lands.
Mr Gogarty said this letter was sent on May 10th, 1988, a month before the planning permission was due to expire. The council agreed to the proposal later in May and the company sent the cheque for £122,460 in June.
Ten days later, Mr Bailey made an offer for the lands and on August 24th they were sold to one of his companies for £1.327 million. A day later, a revised planning permission was submitted. The levy was returned to Mr Gogarty's firm.
Mr Redmond, who went to the Supreme Court in an unsuccessful attempt to have the allegations heard against him in private, was left to fend for himself during yesterday's hearing. He said later his solicitor's wife had just given birth, while neither of his barristers had been informed the allegations against their client were coming up yesterday.
In other evidence, Mr Gogarty was led through work notes he wrote by hand in July or August 1989, with their tantalising, but unexplained, references to matters such as a slush fund or breaches of import regulations. One note, "Ray Burke and RJC and £30,000" referred to the fact a JMSE executive, Mr Roger Copsey, arranged the money which was paid to Mr Burke, he alleged.
However, Mr Gogarty conceded some of the notes were written in different coloured pens, and may have been added at a later date.