There was "no truth" in the suggestion that Mr Michael Bailey, Mr Ray Burke and Mr Joseph Murphy jnr got together to agree a story about their meeting in Mr Burke's home in June 1989, the tribunal was told.
Answering questions from Mr Burke's counsel, Mr Joseph Finnegan SC, Mr Bailey said there was no attempt by the three men to "sing off the same hymn sheet" concerning the meeting when £30,000 was handed to Mr Burke by Mr James Gogarty.
Mr Bailey also denied a meeting took place in early June 1989 in JMSE's offices, attended by Mr Joseph Murphy jnr, Mr Frank Reynolds and Mr Gogarty, to discuss a proposal from Mr Bailey which involved him "procuring planning permission" for the Murphy lands.
Mr Finnegan asked Mr Bailey if he ever suggested that Mr Burke would be able to get rezoning for the Murphy lands. "Never," he replied.
"Is there any truth in the underlying facts put forward by Mr Gogarty that you could or would obtain, by bribery, planning or zoning?" asked Mr Finnegan. "There was never, nothing discussed regarding this," said Mr Bailey.
Referring to the letter of June 8th, 1989, in which Mr Bailey referred to "procuring planning permission", Mr Finnegan said it was drafted by Mr Bailey's solicitor, Smith of Smith Foy & Partners.
"Would you expect him to participate in a proposal to bribe or corrupt, of what you know of him?" asked Mr Finnegan. "Absolutely not," replied Mr Bailey.
"The import of Mr O'Neill's [Mr Desmond O'Neill SC, counsel for the tribunal] cross-examination of you on this letter is that if you read between the lines, this is a proposal for corruption. Was it such a proposal?" asked Mr Finnegan.
"Never," replied Mr Bailey.
"Would it be wrong to read this letter as anything other than the normal manner in which you read a letter, in other words you read the words in their normal natural meaning without innuendo, is that how it should be read?" asked Mr Finnegan.
"There could be no innuendo in it," said Mr Bailey.
Mr Finnegan said when Mr Bailey was giving his direct evidence, an extraordinary meaning was given to the word "procure". "Where procure meant to obtain something by dishonesty, did you understand that was suggested to you?" he asked.
Mr Bailey said it had been suggested to him, but it was not true. "If I was to suggest to you that the word procure means no more and no less than to get or obtain, would you agree with me, it means no more than to get?" said Mr Finnegan.
Mr Bailey said it was "perfectly legitimate" to use the word. Mr Finnegan said the Oxford English Dictionary supported Mr Bailey's understanding of the word.