The tribunal ended yesterday with a dispute over evidence given by Mr Michael Bailey about talks he held with local authority members concerning planning matters.
In the morning session Mr Bailey, answering questions from the tribunal counsel, Mr Desmond O'Neill SC, said he never talked to politicians about planning applications or planning appeals. However, in the afternoon session he told Mr O'Neill he held meetings with local councillors about certain planning matters.
In the morning Mr O'Neill asked: "Would you talk to third parties such as planning officials or Bord Pleanala members or elected officials or politicians or anybody like that? I am talking about 1988-89 specifically".
Mr Bailey replied: "No, I don't believe I would".
Mr O'Neill added: "Would it be fair to say that in so far as there was anything to be done with regard to planning or development or rezoning, these were matters which would be left to your professional agent, Mr Allan Tompkins [Mr Bailey's architect]?"
"That would be the situation," Mr Bailey replied.
When asked if he ever discussed planning matters with "elected representatives", Mr Bailey said: "Not to my knowledge or recollection."
He said his only role in planning matters within the company was in deciding on "house type" for each site.
However, in the afternoon, Mr Bailey was asked about his role in the area of planning matters. He replied that he would hold discussions with "local representatives of the local councils, whoever are involved".
He added that in relation to lot 6 of the Murphy lands in Portmarnock he had spoken "to the local representatives" about the plans for that land.
"I have sat nights with community councils, with members of residents' associations, I mean nights, discussing the pros and cons of pieces of land all over north Co Dublin," he said.
In relations to lot 6 he said: "I in turn spoke to the local representatives and I asked them, which is on record, would they propose that nine acres for infill housing, and we had meetings and this piece of land was identified as being suitable for in-fill housing in Portmarnock," he stated.
Mr O'Neill asked Mr Bailey what he meant by "local representatives" and he replied "the local county councillors".
At that stage Mr O'Neill pointed out that in the morning Mr Bailey had said he had not talked to local representatives about planning matters.
"I had asked you this morning whether or not you would have, in your planning applications, made contact with local government officials, with representatives of An Bord Pleanala and with elected representatives, and you indicated to me that you would not have done so," he said.
Mr Bailey replied: "I believe, and if the record is right or wrong, I believe you asked me had I any contact with any members of what you just mentioned, regarding those lands in 1988 and 1989. That is what I believe you asked me this morning if my memory serves me right."
At that stage, Mr Justice Flood said the transcript of the proceedings would be examined overnight and then the tribunal would "find out who is right".
Earlier, Mr O'Neill led Mr Bailey through the course of negotiations between himself and Mr Gogarty for the Murphy lands in north Co Dublin during 1989. Mr Bailey said an early bid of £1.9 million was rejected by Mr Gogarty.
He said during the process he learned there had been other offers from potential purchasers for the land.
He said one of the major issues in relation to the sale of the land was the position of Poppintree House.
"There was a big if about that at the time. There were plans for a halting site on that particular site by Dublin Corporation and there was parts of it I was interested in buying and he [Mr Gogarty] was very emphatic that the Murphys wanted to dispose of the complete amount of land," he said.
"The land surrounding Poppintree House was a terrible situation", he said, because Dublin Corporation's plans would "stymie" the plans for the land and would "leave it worthless". He said this was later resolved and when he bought the lands Poppintree House was included.
Mr Bailey said another issue arose when Mr Gogarty said he was the sole agent for the lands and consequently would have to be paid a "finder's fee" for his work.
Mr O'Neill asked him when the issue of the finder's fee entered the negotiations.
"I have no record of when he first said it," replied Mr Bailey.
He said contemporaries in the building industry commented on how brave it was for Bovale Developments to purchase such a chunk of land outright in the period.