The Flood tribunal's investigation of the allegations made by Mr James Gogarty now seems virtually certain to drag on into the autumn, two years after the tribunal was established.
With the backlog of witnesses continuing to mount, there is virtually no prospect that the tribunal will hear all Gogarty-related evidence by the end of this month, as it had intended.
Still unresolved problems relating to the production of documents from Joseph Murphy Structural Engineering have meant that none of the 19 witnesses linked to the company could give evidence this week.
The tribunal has adjourned until Monday following yesterday's hearing on procedural matters.
Doubts remain as to when the developer, Mr Michael Bailey, and his brother, Mr Tom Bailey, will give evidence.
The tribunal is hoping to schedule both witnesses next week, although Mr Tom Bailey is still in the unique position of not having furnished a statement.
Mr Justice Flood indicated his intention yesterday to hear the evidence of Mr Joseph Murphy snr in Jersey at the end of this month.
In the same week, the Supreme Court is due to announce its judgment in the appeal taken by the tribunal against the Fianna Fail TD, Mr Liam Lawlor.
Effectively, this means that the evidence of the Bailey brothers, Mr Joseph Murphy jnr and dozens of others witnesses would have to be squeezed into next week if the tribunal was to complete its work before the end of the month.
At yesterday's hearing Mr Garrett Cooney SC, for JMSE, again raised objections to procedures at the tribunal.
Some of these have been made before, such as the complaint about the lack of an opening statement from the tribunal. However, the passage of time since Mr Gogarty finished his evidence arguably gives them new relevance.
Mr Cooney also objected to the fact that Murphys still did not know the allegations being made against them; that the planning history of the Murphy lands at the centre of the inquiry had not been outlined in public; and that the role of county councillors in rezoning the lands had not been outlined.
Once again, the day was marked by further sniping between the Murphy and Gogarty legal teams. Mr Cooney accused Mr Gogarty's lawyers of acting as "auxiliaries" and "unofficial prosecutors and persecutors" of his clients.
Mr Frank Callanan SC, for Mr Gogarty, said he was no B-Special. Mr Cooney had called Mr Gogarty a liar and it was therefore preposterous for him to restrict Mr Gogarty's lawyers.
Ms Patricia Dillon, counsel for the tribunal, listed documents she said the tribunal wished to obtain from Murphys.
These included documents relating to the affidavit sworn by a former chief executive of JMSE, Mr Liam Conroy, in the Isle of Man in 1989, and documents relating to Mr Gogarty's severance agreement with the company in the same year.
However, Mr Cooney contested this submission, saying it was only being done at the behest of Mr Gogarty's legal team.
Mr Justice Flood said he would respond to the various submission on Monday.
There's a touch of the school tour at the end of the year about the tribunal's plans to decamp to Jersey later this month to hear evidence from Mr Murphy snr.
Mr Justice Flood hopes to complete the exercise in two days of hearings at the end of this month, before the tribunal closes down for the summer holiday.
For tribunal "lifers", the attractions of a sortie to the south cannot be denied. But the cost to the tribunal, and to its public image if it proves expensive, could be massive.
Mr Murphy (82), a multi-millionaire who has lived in tax exile in the Channel Islands for 20 years, is not in the best of health.
He travelled to Dublin at the start of the year but his health has deteriorated and his doctors say he cannot make the journey.
According to Mr Cooney, he suffers short-term memory loss and another specified condition which will necessitate frequent interruptions when he comes to give evidence.
Given that it took four months to deal with the last pensioner to come into the witness-box, the chairman's estimate of two days seems optimistic.
Mr Callanan left no doubt yesterday that his cross-examination of Mr Murphy would be both searching and lengthy.
What will be achieved through Mr Murphy's evidence in any case?
Mr Cooney said yesterday the purpose of his client's evidence would be to refute the allegations made against him by Mr Gogarty.
But will this cast any light on the central allegations which the tribunal was set up to deal with, those of planning corruption?
Probably not. Mr Gogarty spent much of his evidence settling scores with his former employers. In the process, we may or may not have learned something about planning corruption: that is for the chairman to decide.
However, Mr Justice Flood's problem now is that the Murphys will now want ample time to state their case and, if possible, extract revenge on Mr Gogarty.
Having allowed Mr Gogarty's evidence to take so long, at huge expense, the tribunal now finds it is bound to incur more expense in the name of fairness.
The tribunal resumes at 10.30 a.m. on Monday.