Lawyers for Mr Michael Bailey, Mr Thomas Bailey and Bovale Ltd yesterday refused a request to give Anglo-Irish Bank documents to the planning tribunal's legal team at this stage.
The matter of discovery of documents will be argued by the relevant parties in private session at the tribunal on Monday morning, before the resumption of Mr James Gogarty's evidence at the public sitting.
The tribunal team yesterday claimed that, given what had come out through publication of an article in the Irish Independent last Wednesday, they were requesting the documents, which they stated were not only relevant but fundamental to the issue of a £50,000 cash withdrawal allegedly made by Mr Michael Bailey on November 23rd last.
Mr Pat Hanratty SC, for the tribunal, requesting the documents, said there was the question of the transcript of interviews with two officials of Anglo-Irish Bank, which were taken in May and June last.
These interviews were between the tribunal and the bank officials.
In view of the information which had got out into the public realm before any significant evidence on the issue had been given, it appeared to him that it was not unreasonable to ask Mr Colm Allen SC, for the Baileys and Bovale, if he would consent to the tribunal issuing the transcripts of the two interviews.
It was also not unreasonable to ask Mr Allen if he would consent to three bank documents, appendices to the narrative statement submitted by Anglo-Irish Bank, being furnished.
Correspondence had included reference to the entire Anglo-Irish Bank file. It seemed that the whole file was relevant and there was no reason why the entire file should not be made available.
In circumstances where this information, with this level of detail, had been given and its emergence into the public realm, it was not unreasonable to invite Mr Allen to state if the article reflected the case being made to the tribunal.
Mr Hanratty said that Mr Allen should stop playing games. "Does the material in the article actually represent the case his client is making or does it not?" Mr Hanratty said.
If it did represent the case, was there any good reason why they should not now submit a detailed statement? It was entirely reasonable that the tribunal should ask that it be dealt with now.
Mr Allen said he wished to refer to the chairman's brief statement in which he had very properly and fairly brought to the attention of all parties the developments which had arisen since the inquiry into leaked material had commenced.
Mr Allen said that he wished to reserve and consider his position. It was entirely legitimate and proper for their legal team to take such a course, which did not include furnishing or consenting to the requests at this stage made by Mr Hanratty.
The chairman asked what Mr Allen's position was in relation to the bank papers.
Mr Allen replied: "I am saying at the moment, for now, I am declining each and every one of Mr Hanratty's requests."
He said there were two inquiries, each of them bearing on these documentations. He was asking for time to consult.
The chairman said that he would sit in private on Monday morning to deal with the question of discovery of the bank documents.