Differences of opinion arose yesterday between counsel for the tribunal, Mr Des O'Neill SC, and a witness, a trust law expert, Mr Christopher Oakley.
The British lawyer claimed that the material being put to him by the tribunal was one-sided. He was being examined on material in affidavits sworn by the late Mr Liam Conroy, the former JMSE chief executive.
It was alleged in them that Mr Joseph Murphy snr had been involved in serious tax irregularities and had benefited personally from monies accruing to the Murphy Trust without declaring such income for tax purposes.
Mr Oakley said there were serious gaps in the format of the documentation he was being asked to comment on because of the failure of the tribunal to come up with corresponding affidavits from Mr Murphy which addressed the allegations made by Mr Conroy.
The discussion focused on the documentation which had been made available from the office of the High Court in London. Mr O'Neill said certain documents had not been made available which included some of the material cited by Mr Oakley.
However, Mr Oakley volunteered notes of his examination of his client, Mr Murphy, which he had to hand on which the missing (Murphy) affidavits had been based. These notes had been compiled as a direct response to the charges being made by Mr Conroy.
He had gone through the substance of Mr Conroy's evidence in each case and prepared draft affidavits on behalf of Mr Murphy, which were then submitted as instructions to counsel. Since the Murphy affidavits were not forthcoming from the London High Court office, the tribunal could either seek assistance from Mr Murphy's counsel, who should have his affidavits, or avail of his own notes.
The importance of such "contemporaneous recollection" to the tribunal was stressed by Mr Dan Herbert SC, for Mr Oakley.
The chairman, Mr Justice Flood, said it was a matter for Mr O'Neill as to how he might conduct his examination.
The tribunal lawyer chose not to avail of the offer because of the time involved. He suggested that in the event that Mr Murphy might be guilty of tax fraud, as alleged by Mr Conroy, this would have the effect of invalidating the Murphy Trust. Not so, said Mr Oakley. Any liabilities arising in such an event would be personal and would be pursued as such by the tax authorities.