It was like old times at the Flood tribunal, with veteran senior counsel Mr Garrett Cooney locked in combat with a pensioner witness.
With each passing day of this libel trial between Fianna Fβil official Mr Sean Sherwin and the Sunday Independent, property developer Mr Tom Gilmartin is showing more and more of the feistiness that marked Mr James Gogarty in his clashes with Mr Cooney at the tribunal.
Yesterday, Mr Gilmartin was accusing Mr Cooney of "cherry-picking and nit-picking" in relation to his evidence. There were swipes at "the Fianna Fβil gutter press" which printed "scurrilous lies" against him. And like Mr Gogarty, Mr Gilmartin repeatedly intimated that there was a much greater story out there.
Mr Cooney, the most celebrated libel lawyer in town, delivered a typically bruising performance, his head swivelling constantly around the courtroom without ever directing his gaze upon the witness. Then there were his audible sighs, delivered as he and Mr Kevin Feeney SC, for Independent Newspapers, engaged in gladiatorial disputes over ever more arcane points of law. Meanwhile, the jury, as Mr Feeney pointed out, trooped in and out "like a yo-yo" and Mr Gilmartin held his peace in the witness box..
With all the legal disputes, this case is now in its second full week without any sign of an imminent conclusion. Costs are already in six figures. Once again, a prominent libel case is going to produce some major winners and losers.
Today, lawyers for the tribunal will argue against Mr Cooney's attempt to get his hands on Mr Gilmartin's statement to the tribunal. The tribunal successfully argued this point in a previous libel trial involving Mr Denis O'Brien, but even so, further delays can be expected.
The irony is that Mr Gilmartin says he bears "no animosity" towards Mr Sherwin. Both men agree Mr Gilmartin told the Fianna Fβil official in 1990 that he gave a £50,000 cheque to Mr Padraig Flynn for Fianna Fβil the year before. For Mr Gilmartin, this is the crucial proof that he was the victim of bribery and corruption, "and not the reverse".
Where they differ is that Mr Gilmartin says Mr Sherwin solicited money from him for the party, and also sought money for his sister-in-law, who was running in the local elections. Mr Sherwin says he didn't solicit money for anyone.
There is still no indication of when Mr Gilmartin will testify to the tribunal.