Letters exchanged between Mr Charles Haughey and the tribunal showed that while the tribunal was seeking information from Mr Haughey about his financial affairs, Mr Haughey was seeking clarification of the inquiry's terms of reference.
The court examined correspondence exchanged between the tribunal and Mr Haughey or his solicitor between November 5th, 1997, and December 18th, 1997, when the legal proceedings were initiated.
It detailed that correspondence, beginning with a letter from the solicitor for the tribunal seeking information regarding Mr Haughey's financial affairs while in public office.
Mr Haughey had replied on November 14th, stating that because of the length of time involved, 35 years, it would be almost impossible to supply the kind of information sought.
He also expressed concern about the constitutionality of the tribunal's terms of reference and whether it was appropriate for a High Court judge to inquire into political matters.
He said he was seeking advice and assistance on the tribunal's request and the matters he had raised.
From November 19th, 1997, all correspondence on behalf of Mr Haughey was dealt with by his solicitor. Various letters sought an explanation of the tribunal's terms of reference as they affected Mr Haughey.
The Supreme Court said it was clear, from a letter of December 2nd, 1997, sent by the tribunal's solicitor to Mr Haughey, that the tribunal considered the requirements of fair procedures in the making of the orders for discovery against Mr Haughey were complied with by affording any interested or affected person the opportunity to apply to the tribunal to vary or discharge those orders.
The tribunal had also informed Mr Haughey's solicitor it would "not enter into debate" about its terms of reference, saying submissions might be made to the tribunal by any person who has been granted representation by the tribunal.
At earlier hearings of the tribunal dealing with representation, Mr Haughey did not seek representation.
From the correspondence, it was implied the tribunal would not entertain submissions to it made on behalf of any person who had not been granted representation, the court said.
In a letter of December 9th, Mr Haughey's solicitor said the refusal to enter into debate on the terms of reference was "an absolute denial of a person's constitutional right to have his good name protected and vindicated" and again sought the tribunal's interpretation of its terms.
In a reply of December 12th, the tribunal solicitor repeated the refusal "to enter into debate with you on the jurisprudence of tribunals of inquiry".
In another letter on December 18th the tribunal said it was aware of its duties and entitlements and "save as thereby provided and mindful of its duties in the context of fair procedures", said it was "not disposed to have necessary and pertinent aspects of investigations at this juncture directed, supervised or curtailed by your client".
The Supreme Court said it was clear from the correspondence that while the tribunal was seeking information from Mr Haughey, he was seeking clarification of the terms of reference. The solicitor to the tribunal "was not willing to clarify the terms of reference or, on behalf of the tribunal, to enter into any discussions with regard thereto".
It said: "The sole member of the tribunal had adopted the attitude that he would not entertain submissions from any party who had not been granted representation before the tribunal."
Mr Haughey had alleged that irrespective of the question as to whether he had been granted representation or not, he was entitled to make submissions to the tribunal in view of the nature of the inquiries being conducted by the tribunal into what he alleged were his "private affairs".