Legal submissions were made protesting at the taking of Mr Gogarty's evidence before any opening statement from tribunal lawyers.
Mr Colm Allen SC, for Bovale Developments Ltd, Mr Michael Bailey and Mr Thomas Bailey, said that he fully accepted remarks about Mr Gogarty's advanced age and the state of his health. He would receive all due courtesy and civility.
Mr Allen said his clients had been to court on one occasion and had no intention of going back to the courts until the completion of the tribunal and then, and only then, if necessary. They would not interrupt or delay the workings of the tribunal.
But the approach adopted by the tribunal to the holding of public hearings was fundamentally and fatally flawed.
He questioned the provenance of Mr Gogarty's affidavit. It had come with a limited amount of documents in the first instance, he said. A great deal more relevant documentation was furnished to them later which called into question Mr Gogarty's bona fides, his credibility and his trustworthiness. The perception was that in a number of ways Mr Gogarty was a seriously-flawed individual.
Mr Allen said he had a difficulty in this matter. They were informed in a letter of November 16th last that Mr Gogarty's affidavit was not the property of the tribunal. Since that letter, a controversy arose over leakages to the press, and he was surprised to hear the position asserted by the tribunal that it had property rights.
"It goes to the root of the concept of fair procedures as to how Mr Gogarty's evidence is to be taken," counsel stated. "My clients are here to have their reputations examined, to put it at its politest," he said.
It seemed to him that it was profoundly wrong that there was no context whatever for the taking of this witness's evidence. The only context in which the evidence was being taken was his age and state of health.
"It beggars belief that a tribunal of major public importance, that its legal team have nothing whatever to say on the opening day of the hearing, but are mute, not a whisper from anybody of what the tribunal is about, where the lands are, what happened to the lands," he said.
There was a widespread public perception that the 784 acres of land in some way, through some "golden process", had acquired zoning, planning permission and benefits, and led to accrual of vast coffers to his client.
"That is hogwash. The vast majority of the lands remain unzoned and the vast majority of lands remain unsold," Mr Allen said.
The chairman said that he hated to interrupt but they were departing from the world of legal submissions into the world of propaganda.
Mr Allen said: "It may be your propaganda but it is my fact, and I defy you to tell me that it is not fact. And I don't use the word defy in any disrespectful sense, sir. It is a fact that these lands remain in the condition that I have indicated to you.
"That is not a matter of propaganda. That is one of the matters which you are expected to inquire into, but you are not going to inquire into which you tell us. No, sir, you are going to have dear old Mr Gogarty get into the box and give his evidence and be treated very nicely at your request by everybody and then totter off, and then presumably some rationale will be found to justify the continuance of the proceedings."
Mr Brian Leonard SC, for Mr Gerard Downes, said he was before the tribunal to defend and vindicate the good name of his client. He submitted that before Mr Gogarty gave evidence any documentary evidence which was in Mr Gogarty's power which reflected on his client's good name should be furnished to him so that they could property deal with the allegations.
Mr James O'Reilly SC, for the public interest, said that as far as procedures were concerned it was a matter for the tribunal itself to determine what were appropriate procedures.
Replying, Mr Pat Hanratty SC, for the tribunal, said Mr Cooney had suggested that it was essential for tribunal counsel to make an opening speech.
"Mr Cooney's arguments completely ignore the fact that this exercise that we are engaged in today is simply the taking of Mr Gogarty's evidence," he said.
". . . Mr Allen will be assured that in the fullness of time on the opening day of full sittings of this tribunal, there will be a very detailed opening statements by counsel."