Different versions of events surrounding the purchase of Doncaster Rovers football club, some of which appeared to involve "multiple coincidences", had prompted the Moriarty tribunal's belief there should be public hearings into the purchase, the High Court heard yesterday.

Among the matters considered by the tribunal in deciding to hold public hearings were its receipt of notes by two English solicitors stating that former government minister Michael Lowry had an involvement in the August 1998 purchase of Doncaster Rovers, which was bought by Westferry Ltd, a company controlled by a trust set up by businessman Denis O'Brien, Mr Brian Murray SC, for the tribunal, said.

One solicitor, Mr Christopher Vaughan, who acted for Westferry Ltd, had stated in a phone call with another solicitor that Mr Lowry had said he was involved in the Doncaster transaction. Mr Vaughan had later given a different version to the tribunal and was now saying he had been wrong and that he believed Mr Lowry was never involved with the Doncaster matter.

Mr Murray said the tribunal had received various versions of events surrounding the Doncaster purchase, including whether or not Mr Lowry was involved in the transaction.

The tribunal had learned of what appeared to be "multiple coincidences" in relation to such events and it was also "striking" how "confused" several persons, including solicitors involved in the Doncaster transaction, appeared to be about what role Mr Lowry's accountant, Denis O'Connor, was playing in relation to certain matters, including attempts to resolve outstanding issues from the Doncaster purchase.

One document appeared to put Mr O'Connor in situ when there was an effort to resolve a dispute about fees to be paid to a Northern Ireland businessman, Mr Kevin Phelan, who had introduced Westferry to the Doncaster transaction, Mr Murray said.

It also appeared that of all accountants, the one to whom Mr Denis O'Brien snr, father of Mr O'Brien, had looked to for help in relation to resolving matters arising from the Doncaster transaction was Mr O'Connor, counsel added. This was at a time when there were rumours Mr Lowry had an interest in Doncaster.

Mr O'Connor had told the tribunal there was a considerable misunderstanding about a note by a London solicitor acting for Denis O'Brien's family trust, Ruth Collard, recording that Mr O'Connor had said there was a connection between Mr Lowry and the Doncaster issue.

Mr O'Connor had said he believed he would not have made the statement attributed to him as he never understood that Mr Lowry had any involvement with Doncaster. Mr Murray said the tribunal had also been given three different versions of a meeting between Mr Vaughan and Mr Lowry in England in September 1998.

In one of those versions, Mr Vaughan had said he met Mr Lowry on the evening of September 24th, 1998, at the home of an English businessman who was involved in the Doncaster transaction. In another version, Mr Vaughan said he met Mr Lowry at Mr Vaughan's office while Mr Lowry himself said he had met Mr Vaughan in a hotel in Northampton.

Mr Murray was outlining the tribunal's opposition to proceedings by Mr O'Brien aimed at overturning a decision of the tribunal to hold public hearings into the August 1998 purchase of Doncaster Rovers FC by Westferry and the "purported connection" of Mr Lowry to that purchase.

Both Mr O'Brien and Mr Lowry have denied that Mr Lowry had any involvement in the transaction and Mr O'Brien claims there is no evidence on which the tribunal can base a decision to hold public hearings into the issue.

Yesterday Mr Murray read extensive correspondence and documents received by the tribunal during its private inquiry stage into the Doncaster transaction. These included documents compiled by Ms Collard, including her note of a conversation in which she recorded Mr O'Connor as saying that Mr Lowry did have a connection with the Doncaster purchase.

Ms Collard had also formed the firm impression for a time that Mr O'Connor was going into meetings related to issues arising from the Doncaster transaction as a representative of Mr O'Brien and his interests.

She had later noted being told that was not the case and noted Mr John Ryall, a former adviser to Mr O'Brien, had told her Mr O'Connor was not involved in that process at all.

The case continues on Tuesday.