Mr Justice Flood reserved judgment on an application by the tribunal's legal team for the discovery of documents and accounts relating to Mr Michael Bailey's companies.
The tribunal lawyers are seeking a list of companies in which Mr Bailey has a beneficial interest, the accounts of the companies and documents relating to Bovale Developments held by its solicitor, Smith Foy and Partners.
Mr Justice Flood said he would issue a judgment on the matter "within the next week" which would be posted to the relevant parties. The tribunal lawyers are looking for an order which applies to companies in the Republic and Britain.
Counsel for the tribunal Mr Felix McEnroy SC said any order would be addressed to Mr Bailey "personally" and was a "fair and reasonable requirement" considering the evidence which had been given by him.
He said requests for the documents would also involve issuing an order to Bovale Developments' accountant, Mr Joe O'Toole, of McGrath and Co. Mr McEnroy said he had been informed that Mr Bailey had consented to make available his telephone records to the tribunal.
He said the tribunal needed the documents relating to Mr Bailey's companies because Mr Bailey had set "a line of evidence" which needed to be tested.
"You [Mr Justice Flood] have an imperative legal duty to follow the lines of inquiry identified by Mr Bailey so that you can be satisfied that it is the truth, that it is reliable, that it is probative and that it is something that goes to the issues so identified."
He continued: "There is also an outstanding allegation in the tribunal that Mr Bailey may or may not have paid a sum of £40,000 on June 8th, 1989, to Mr Ray Burke and the tribunal has a clear duty to investigate that matter and that clearly would include investigating these books of account."
Counsel for Bovale Developments, Mr Garrett Simons, said the documents requested related to "collateral issues".
"This isn't a matter detailed in the terms of reference. I would urge caution. There must be some limit on the extent to which credibility can be pursued. It can't exist entirely at large.
"The simple point or proposition I am putting forward is that because these are collateral issues, a higher threshold must apply. In other words, you must be satisfied that there is some evidential basis for the scope of the orders now being sought."
He said there was no evidence that the payments to Mr Gogarty came from sources other than Bovale Developments. "Whatever about entitlement to look behind Bovale Developments' books of accounts themselves, there is simply no basis for seeking orders against companies in England."