The tribunal was entitled to know if an article which appeared in the Irish Independent was Mr Michael Bailey's version of events relating to an alleged £50,000 cheque which Mr James Gogarty claimed he gave him, it was stated at the tribunal.
Mr Pat Hanratty SC, for the tribunal, introduced the issue of a story written by Sam Smyth on the front page of the Irish Independent with the headline "Gogarty faces quiz on £50,000 bank cash". He said he wanted to raise a serious matter in connection with the article "which may involve another unauthorised disclosure of tribunal information".
He stated that there were six assertions of fact contained in the article.
The first sentence of the article: "Builder Michael Bailey drew £50,000 in cash from his bank and told officials it was to pay James Gogarty" was an assertion that he drew cash, Mr Hanratty said.
In the third paragraph: "Mr Bailey is understood to have withdrawn £50,000 in cash on November 23rd, 1989, and said it was the first of three payments to Mr Gogarty to secure a land deal."
The next paragraph stated: "It is understood a bank official took contemporaneous notes of the meeting with Mr Bailey and they will be available to the tribunal."
The fourth assertion was: "Bailey is alleged to have told the bank officials that he wanted £50,000 in cash and he needed it for Mr Gogarty."
The fifth was: "Details of the conversation were taken down at the time and found in the file notes when the bank was approached by the tribunal."
The last assertion was: "It is understood that Mr Bailey and his company, Bovale, had a long and mutually beneficial relationship with Anglo Irish Bank, and the bank agreed to lend him the money. However, the bank didn't keep large amounts of cash on the premises and it had to be obtained elsewhere."
Mr Hanratty said it was quite clear from the article that detailed and specific information was given to the newspaper and it raised a number of questions. The first was whether the terms of the article was the version in its entirety which the Baileys would give relating to Mr Gogarty's evidence concerning the £50,000. For five days last week, there was legal argument as to why the Baileys should not furnish a further statement in relation to the £50,000 cheque evidence. In the statement Mr Michael Bailey submitted, he simply denied he gave the cheque and said he would deal with the latter on cross-examination. "Now we read a version, which maybe or maybe not is his version and the tribunal is entitled to know if it is," he said.
"If it is Mr Bailey's version of events, I suggest it is not now unreasonable to request that Mr Bailey submit in writing his account of the £50,000 transaction."