Digifone executive 'replaced solicitors'

Moriarty Tribunal: William Fry solicitors was replaced as solicitors to Esat Digifone as a condition set by Digifone's chief executive, Mr Barry Maloney, before he would withdraw his resignation in 1997 or early 1998, the tribunal was told.

The managing partner with William Fry, Mr Owen O'Connell, rejected a suggestion that while he was working as solicitor to Esat Digifone he believed his "real client" was Mr Denis O'Brien.

Mr O'Connell, continuing his evidence, told Mr Eoghan Fitzsimons SC, for Norwegian company Telenor, that he acted for Mr O'Brien's Communicorp group in early 1995. During the year, Communicorp and Telenor established Esat Digifone and Mr O'Connell became its solicitor.

He handed over work related to Communicorp to another partner in his firm but still worked for Communicorp in relation to matters not connected with Digifone.

He may have on occasion during 1995 and 1996 conducted some Digifone-related work for Communicorp. He was also during 1995 and 1995 solicitor to Mr O'Brien personally.

Mr O'Connell told Mr Fitzsimons he could not say exactly when he began working for Digifone and ceased working for Communicorp in relation to Digifone.

Asked if he advised Telenor in 1995 that it would be wise and prudent to acquire Irish legal advice, Mr O'Connell said he could not recall doing so.

Mr Fitzsimons said Telenor did not acquire an Irish solicitor until October 1995. He said the fact that Telenor had not sought early Irish advice was testament to the trust it had in the guidance it was getting in Ireland.

Mr Fitzsimons said there was "almost total trust" between Telenor and Mr O'Brien "and above all" with Mr O'Connell during early 1995. Mr O'Connell, however, said there was "always some level of misunderstanding" between Mr O'Brien and Telenor. The two were like "chalk and cheese".

It annoyed Mr O'Brien that the Norwegians went home to Norway at the weekends and would "leave rucksacks under the stairs, all sorts of things like that". There were cultural differences between the two.

He said the first big row erupted in late 1995 but had been simmering before it erupted.

Mr O'Connell said he did not know if he had ever advised Telenor to get local legal advice. As a rule he preferred it if people he was dealing with did get local legal advice. He said it was not correct that it suited Communicorp that Telenor did not have Irish legal advice in 1995.

Mr Fitzsimons said there was no requirement on Mr O'Connell to advise the Norwegians to get their own legal advisers and "it suited your client for you not to allow your conscience to be pricked".

Mr O'Connell said he did not accept that at all. He believed it was quite likely he had advised Telenor to get Irish legal advice. He had no record of it, however. He was not aware of any way in which Mr O'Brien benefited from Telenor not having local legal advice.

Mr O'Connell said he could not remember if he had ever advised Mr O'Brien that he had an obligation to act in good faith towards Telenor. When Mr Fitzsimons said it was clear Mr O'Brien had not acted in good faith towards Telenor, Mr O'Connell said the point would have to be directed towards Mr O'Brien.

When Mr Fitzsimons said Mr O'Connell, when acting for Digifone, considered his real client to be Mr O'Brien, Mr O'Connell said that was an improper suggestion.

He said that any characterisation of Telenor as "babes in the woods" was not correct. Mr Fitzsimons said he was not suggesting that Mr O'Connell had acted improperly, he was saying that Mr O'Connell believed his "real client" was Mr O'Brien and that "in his eyes" Telenor didn't matter.

Mr Fitzsimons's examination of Mr O'Connell is to continue on Tuesday.