A solicitor for the family of the late chief executive of CI╔ told the rail signalling inquiry yesterday that evidence given by witnesses had damaged the deceased's reputation.
Mr Patrick Rowan, for the widow and family of the late Mr Michael McDonnell, said the inquiry might conclude, on the basis of some evidence, that Department of Finance procedures were breached in relation to the troubled signalling project.
He also said questions put to some witnesses implied irregularities in the awarding of a contract in a parallel project between CI╔ and the telecommunications firm Esat.
He said the value to CI╔ of the arrangement with Esat had also been questioned. His concern was that all this might lead the inquiry to a conclusion that reflected on Mr McDonnell.
Mr Rowan was explaining his concerns at the request of inquiry chairman, Mr Seβn Doherty TD, who queried the basis of the solicitor's questions to a number of witnesses on the first day of cross-examination in what is expected to be the last week of the inquiry.
Mr McDonnell was to be called as a witness but he died suddenly in tragic circumstances last April.
The inquiry, by a sub-committee of the Oireachtas Committee on Public Enterprise and Transport, is investigating delays and cost overruns in the installation of a CI╔ rail signalling system needed to improve safety and efficiency on the tracks.
The system, known as mini-CTC, was to have cost £14 million and to be in place by the end of 1999, but it is still unfinished and is likely to cost £50 million to put into working order.
Mr McDonnell was chief executive for much of the period that the project started and ran into trouble.
His widow took a High Court action last month to try to stop the inquiry on the grounds that evidence was being given that her late husband could not refute.
Mr Rowan was warned by Mr Doherty that he would have to show specific instances of damage to Mr McDonnell's reputation in his cross-examination of witnesses.
Mr Doherty's warning came after several interventions by counsel for two witnesses from PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) who were both auditors for CI╔ and consultants to the company.
Mr Rowan put it to one of the witnesses, Mr Peter Lacey, that PwC should have noticed in 1997 or 1998 that the mini-CTC project was in trouble.
"I put it to you that there has been a falling from the usual high standards that PwC has and that you did not produce the audits in the usual manner that would have identified these problems and that if you had, we would not be here today," Mr Rowan said.
Mr Lacey said he rejected Mr Rowan's comments "entirely".
"I am entirely satisfied that our assessment of the risk in 1997 and 1998 were correct and that our procedures were appropriate," he said.
The inquiry also heard yesterday from solicitor Mr Philip Lee, representing Alstom, the signalling company which inherited the mini-CTC contract after it took over one of the two original contractors.
Under cross-examination, Mr Lee defended the form of contract used by CI╔ and the company's decision to delete a clause which provided for variations in the price of the project if unforeseen ground conditions hampered digging or laying of cables.
Mr Lee said the clause commonly served only the interests of the contractor.
The decision to remove it was a "reasonably aggressive move" by Iarnr≤d ╔ireann designed to protect itself.