The former financial controller of JMSE, Mr Tim O'Keeffe, rejected an assertion by counsel for Mr James Gogarty that he had lied under oath in giving evidence to the planning tribunal.
"Your evidence is part of a collective concoction to shield the Murphys from responsibility and to shield your professional reputation," Mr Frank Callanan challenged.
Mr Roger Copsey, the former financial director of the Murphy companies and Mr O'Keeffe's senior colleague, could not inform the tribunal whether he had told the financial controller that the controversial £30,000 payment to Mr Ray Burke was an inter-company loan, said Mr Callanan. Neither he nor Mr Copsey had anything to hide, responded Mr O'Keeffe, as Mr Callanan switched tactics to ask about the "significant decision" as to who represented Mr O'Keeffe and Mr Copsey at the tribunal. They are both represented by Fitzsimons Redmond, the solicitors who also act for the Murphy family.
It had not been a "significant decision" on his part, replied Mr O'Keeffe. When Mr Copsey had given Fitzsimons Redmond as his legal advisers he felt it "would be appropriate to do the same."
Was it not unusual for a firm of accountants (Copsey Murray) and their clients to have common legal representation, asked counsel. The Murphys were former clients, Mr O'Keeffe said.
In any event, it amounted to a complete conflict of interest between client and its advisers "in matters of this kind", persisted Mr Callanan.
"I have no opinion on the matter," the accountant replied.
In response to his own counsel, Mr Michael Cush, Mr O'Keeffe said he was only 25 when he was seconded to JMSE as financial controller in 1989, having qualified as a chartered accountant a few months earlier.
He was asked about his "relatively junior status" in the company at the time and the relationship with the senior executives, for example, Mr James Gogarty, then chairman.
Mr O'Keeffe responded that he would have had a great deal of respect for Mr Gogarty and the senior directors and accepted what they said "as being right for the company".
Referring to Mr Callanan's cross-examination, Mr Cush asked whether there was any substance in his assertion that "there was some bargaining" between Mr O'Keeffe and Mr Copsey over the explanation that the £30,000 was treated as an inter-company loan. "None whatsoever," said Mr O'Keeffe.