There were heated exchanges at the tribunal over the contents of a letter of June 8th, 1989, from Mr Michael Bailey to Mr James Gogarty concerning the sale of the Murphy lands in north Co Dublin.
In the letter Mr Bailey offered to change the lands "from their present status of agricultural lands with very limited potential, even for agricultural use, into highly valuable building lands".
Mr Bailey proposed in the letter that he would be given a 50 per cent ownership of the lands for "procuring planning permission and building by-law approval". Mr Bailey said the expenditure involved in his work to get planning permission and by-law approval would amount to up to £300,000.
"It is essential that the planning application should be brought in the name of an active house-building company which enjoys good standing and good working relationships with the planners and the council members," the letter read.
Counsel for the tribunal, Mr Desmond O'Neill SC, repeatedly asked Mr Bailey to estimate the value of the lands now if they had received the planning permission. "If you were successful, as you considered you would be at the time you put forward the proposal, in rezoning the lots in question, what is the approximate value on every acre that would be sold?" he asked Mr Bailey.
"No idea, absolutely no idea," Mr Bailey replied.
Mr O'Neill said if one assumed a value of £30,000 per acre, the lands would be worth £21 million and Mr Bailey's "take" would have been £10.5 million.
Mr Bailey replied: "You can't do that. That is unfair to everybody concerned. You can't value something based on what it hasn't got. You cannot do that. There is land in Finglas that is zoned for the last 20 years and it was worth £100,000 an acre and then £5,000 an acre because it has no services." Members of Mr Bailey's legal team said Mr O'Neill was not letting the witness explain the context of why it was impossible to formulate a valuation. Mr Colm Allen SC said it was unfair that Mr Bailey was not being given the chance to answer the questions the way he wanted.
Mr Justice Flood said Mr Bailey was not answering the question and added that he must have had a valuation in mind when he sent the letter to Mr Gogarty.
Mr O'Neill asked Mr Bailey if he thought he was valuing his "input rather highly" by seeking a 50 per cent holding in the acreage he would rezone.
Mr Bailey said: "That is hypothetical, because we don't know what the land was going to be worth."
"Surely it's not hypothetical," replied Mr O'Neill.
"Excuse me, Mr O'Neill, you seem to be becoming a valuer. Like I am builder and you are senior counsel. And now you seem to be becoming a valuer this afternoon. if you don't mind me saying," said Mr Bailey.
"Well, thank you for the comment," Mr O'Neill responded.
"I am trying to be helpful, Mr Chairman, but I am being blocked," Mr Bailey said.