Perhaps the only people to take some comfort from yesterday's adjournment of the Flood tribunal were Messrs Michael and Thomas Bailey. And not because the two developers were anything less than keen to see their senior counsel, Mr Colm Allen, start quizzing their octagenarian tormentor, Mr James Gogarty.
No, Mr Justice Flood's decision to put off proceedings for another week leaves the two free to head for Cheltenham, where their horse runs this afternoon in the 3.55. According to Mr Thomas Bailey, Linden's Lotto is worth an eachway bet.
But even allowing for this, the latest adjournment left a roomful of lawyers, journalists and tribunal-watchers frustrated and angry at the continuing delays besetting the inquiry.
As the costs mount up, the tribunal proceeds at a snail's pace and allows itself to be derailed by a variety of external events. There was nothing in the Sunday Times story which caused the latest adjournment that will in any way influence the chairman's final report, yet another week's work was lost.
Yet again, a deliberate media leak calculated to damage Mr Gogarty's reputation brought matters to a halt. There were the by-now-ritual condemnations, the assertions by lawyers that their clients were not responsible and the decision to refer yet another leak to the Garda.
There was nothing in Mr Gogarty's body-language in Dublin Castle to indicate a reluctance to take the witness-stand. Equally, there was no arguing with his lawyer's claim that the witness was "acutely distressed" at the appearance of the story.
"Gogarty `wanted men to be shot' " read the headline, which dealt with an industrial dispute involving Joseph Murphy Structural Engineering employees engaged in the construction of the Money point generating station in 1981.
The headline referred to a claim allegedly made in a sworn affidavit - though the tribunal said it was actually a statement - by Mr Michael O'Sullivan, who says he was employed to intimidate workers during the dispute.
Mr Frank Callanan SC, for Mr Gogarty, said his client had lost a night's sleep over the newspaper allegation, which occurred at a "sensitive point" in his cross-examination. Whoever leaked the information to the Sunday Times knew the tribunal had decided a month ago not to look into the murky events at Moneypoint.
Both Mr Gogarty and his former employers in JMSE agreed with the chairman's ruling that the matter was too far back in time and of little consequence to the central issues under investigation.
So Mr O'Sullivan's statement would never have seen the light of day in Dublin Castle. But now that a selective version has been leaked, Mr Gogarty's lawyers want the whole statement read in public.
Mr Callanan also demanded information on the state of investigations by the tribunal and gardai into previous leaks. And he pressed the chairman to decide whether two controversial documents which back up Mr Gogarty's version of events will be admitted as evidence.
These are the affidavit filed by JMSE's former chief executive, Mr Liam Conroy, in an unfair dismissals case against the company and a disciplinary ruling by an accountancy body against the financial director, Mr Roger Copsey.
These matters will be taken up at a private hearing on Friday.
As many expected, the day began with a bout of legal skirmishing. At stake were the rules which would apply during Mr Allen's cross-examination and his promised "big, big ambush".
Having disclosed relatively little information in statements and other documents compared to Mr Gogarty, Mr Allen enjoyed the advantage of knowing the other side's hand while keeping some of his own cards up his sleeve.
But last Tuesday - just two days before Mr Gogarty's crossexamination was due to begin - his legal team delivered three large boxes of financial records and other documents to the tribunal..
Mr Justice Flood has on previous occasions criticised the Baileys for their lack of co-operation. This could prove costly if the chairman decided as a result to withhold some or all of the Baileys' legal costs. So supplying documentation - masses of it - has its uses.
So vast was the amount of material that the tribunal wrote to lawyers for the Baileys asking them to identify which documents they would be putting to Mr Gogarty during the cross-examination.
In their response, Mr Allen's colleagues indicated they were reluctant to do this, but promised the cross-examination would not take in documents not previously raised at the tribunal or in Mr Gogarty's own discovery.
Mr Callanan called on the chairman to guarantee the witness the opportunity to consult with his lawyers when a document is put to him.
Mr Justice Flood's response was to grant Mr Gogarty the right to consider any documents put to him in cross-examination and to consult his lawyers.
The chairman adjourned public hearings until next Monday.