Counsel for Mr Denis O'Brien has criticised the decision of the tribunal to hear evidence in public concerning the Doncaster Rovers stadium, and has threatened to go to the High Court to seek to have the hearings stopped.
Mr Eoin McGonigal said the people who had sold the grounds, and who had been seeking money from Mr O'Brien, had led the tribunal and others "by the nose" to certain conclusions.
The tribunal should have realised it should not have gone into the matter of Doncaster as the only reason for doing so was to damage Mr O'Brien.
The chairman, Mr Justice Moriarty, said he had given the matter careful consideration. Based on recent case law he had felt it was appropriate to go into the matter. There could be a finding that Mr Michael Lowry was not involved.
Mr McGonigal said the volume of evidence was in favour of the view that Mr Lowry had no interest in the Doncaster deal.
"There is not a criminal judge in the country who would let it go to trial," he said, but the tribunal "was not prepared to vindicate the reputation of Mr O'Brien, as it should. My client's rights are at stake here. You have damaged them enough."
If the tribunal was going to look into these matters, it should do so properly "but only properly".
He said it was his view that there was no substantial evidence that would "justify going into public session in relation to this issue".
There was no evidence "good, bad or indifferent" of any interest other than Mr O'Brien having any involvement in the title to the Doncaster property.
The funding for the transaction showed that no one other than Mr O'Brien and his interests had contributed. Mr Lowry had no hand, act or part in any of it.
He said that whatever had taken place to cause Mr Christopher Vaughan to write his letter of September 1998 should not be gone into because the two main figures involved, Mr Vaughan and Mr Kevin Phelan, were not available to give evidence.
He said Mr Vaughan and Mr Phelan had made it clear in correspondence to the tribunal that they did not believe Mr Lowry was involved.
Mr McGonigal, referring to remarks made earlier by the chairman, said his client would applaud any indication that the tribunal might be coming to an end. The tribunal was now seven years in existence, and its inquiries into Mr O'Brien and the 1995 second mobile phone licence competition had been under way since 2001.
"I am perplexed and my client is more than perplexed that this tribunal is still sitting when it had more than enough time to conclude its sittings in so far as he is concerned."
Mr Justice Moriarty said the fact that there had been 187 pages of correspondence between the tribunal and Mr O'Brien's solicitors might give some inkling of the difficulties the tribunal had been faced with.
