A solicitor to Mr Denis O'Brien and Esat Digifone said he was not in a position to tender evidence concerning any improper interference or wrongdoing by Mr Michael Lowry in relation to the awarding of the State's second mobile phone licence to Esat Digifone.
Mr Owen O'Connell, managing partner with William Fry solicitors, told Mr Rossa Fanning BL, for Mr Lowry, that he met Mr Lowry for the first time in May 1996, on the day the licence was issued to Esat Digifone.
Mr O'Connell, who has been in the witness box for seven days, said he and a number of others met Mr Lowry in an upstairs room in the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications, where the licence was being signed and handed over. He was also in the room in the department later that day where the press conference was held. These were the only meetings he had with Mr Lowry during the period.
Mr Fanning said the tribunal was not per se interested in the licence award or the issue of "internecine warfare" between the partners in Esat Digifone.
The tribunal's terms of reference concerned Mr Lowry. He asked if Mr O'Connell was in a position to tender any evidence of any improper interference or wrongdoing by Mr Lowry. Mr O'Connell said: "No. I am not."
Mr O'Connell told Mr Eoghan Fitzsimons SC, for Telenor, one of the partners in the Digifone consortium, that he did not agree with the suggestion that Mr Denis O'Brien was the "controlling partner" in Esat Digifone.
He also said he did not agree with the view that Mr O'Brien saw Telenor as "a means to an end" that he, Mr O'Brien, intended to "exit" at the earliest possible date. Mr O'Connell said both sides felt that the company would be better served if they had control.
In late 1999 Telenor tried to gain control by way of a hostile bid, and this led to the "white knight" approach by BT which "ended the whole thing".
When Mr Fitzsimons said Mr O'Brien ran Esat Digifone as if it was his company and had no intention of giving control to any other party, Mr O'Connell said he could think of no statement made during his evidence that was further from the truth. The history of the company was dominated by the struggle between the two partners to gain control.
He said Mr Fitzsimons statement might be an accurate statement of Mr O'Brien's desire, but it was a "wholly inaccurate statement" as to what he achieved.
Mr O'Connell told Richard Nesbitt SC, for the department, that in his experience there was always "jostling over control" between partners in joint ventures. He said he believed Telenor always expected, because of its superior financial strength, that it would eventually get control of Esat Digifone and may have been "taken aback" when it didn't.
He said he had always had a very high regard for Mr O'Brien's presentational skills. In the licence competition he felt Mr O'Brien had an advantage as he was willing to risk real money in acquiring sites for Esat Digifone's infrastructure before he had won the licence.
The other bidders were only willing to say what they would do if they got the licence. Mr O'Connell completed his evidence and the tribunal adjourned until Tuesday.
