Mr Joe Murphy snr's surprise present for his financial director, Mr Roger Copsey, on his 46th birthday was, in effect, to tell him he was fired.
It was August 14th, 1990, Mr Copsey told the Flood tribunal. "Joe Murphy phoned to say Jim Gogarty found himself unable to work with me and therefore I would have to resign."
The London-born chartered accountant who had been Mr Murphy snr's "eyes and ears" in Ireland for so long was amazed and asked his employer if he was dissatisfied with his work. "Absolutely not," Mr Murphy had said, "but I need Jim Gogarty on the Sizewell contract."
Mr Murphy had an "unwarranted fear" of the massive contract for the Sizewell nuclear installation. Mr Copsey said it had been negotiated before he came on board. He had been confident, nonetheless, that it would mean large profits for the Murphy group, and so it had.
Part of the problem was that Mr Murphy was not in the steel erection business, but mainly in cable-laying. In contracts of this type, Mr Copsey explained, large profits were made from the "extras" that accrued. It was Mr Gogarty's job to negotiate these, "worth millions and millions" on the Sizewell project. "Therefore, faced with me or Jim Gogarty leaving, he asked me to resign."
Mr Copsey was cross-examined by Mr Frank Callanan SC, for Mr Gogarty, who noted that his client had legally settled his pension disagreement with the Murphys on June 17th, 1990. Mr Callanan found it "extraordinary" that two months later Mr Murphy would be "talking of incompatibility" as the reason for terminating Mr Copsey's retainer.
"My view is that Jim Gogarty has a very long memory for people he believes have acted against his interests," said Mr Copsey. He was a vindictive person, he added, who bided his time "until he had Joe by the tender parts". It was a crucial period for the company with outstanding claims of at least £2 million, and in Mr Murphy snr's mind there was no one capable of negotiating on that scale except Mr Gogarty.
Earlier, Mr Copsey was asked the date of a phone call to him in Moscow from Mr Michael Bailey. He could not say precisely, as he was in Moscow for nine or 10 days a month at that time, but it must have been "towards the end of 1996 or early 1997".
Was this the first time that a "political donation" had been referred to "since Mr Gogarty referred the matter to you and the accounts of Grafton Construction were dealt with?" (Grafton was a Murphy land company against which part of the £30,000 donation had been charged).
Mr Copsey said he wanted to clarify two points. He would not have known how the political donation was treated in the accounts of Grafton, "because these accounts were done six months after I had left the group".
Second, there was no mention at all of a "political donation" in his telephone conversation with Mr Bailey. All that was mentioned was "bribery and things like that".
Earlier he had told the tribunal it was his first conversation with Mr Bailey in many years. The purpose of the call, he gathered, was that Mr Bailey thought he might be instrumental in getting Mr Gogarty and Mr Murphy "to shake hands" and make up. Mr Bailey had said he was concerned about disclosures in the media of bribes for planning permission that could damage Fianna Fail.