CI╔'s chief solicitor believed it would be pointless to tell senior management of concerns he had about the company's proposed deal with Esat.
Mr Michael Carroll told the rail signalling inquiry yesterday that he sent a memo to middle management about the proposal, which he felt was being pushed with undue pressure by then head of programmes and projects, Dr Ray Byrne.
But he worked on trying to improve the terms of the deal without contacting Dr Byrne or Dr Byrne's superior, then chief executive, the late Mr Michael McDonnell.
In evidence later strenuously disputed by Dr Byrne, Mr Carroll said: "I knew Dr Byrne and Mr McDonnell worked very closely together and if I raised it with Mr McDonnell, it would not have helped the process. It would have led to confrontation between him and me."
Mr Carroll has already told the inquiry that the initial proposal, made by Esat in mid-May 1997, was entirely favourable to Esat and contained "nothing but trouble" for CI╔.
The proposal was for Esat to construct a telephone network by laying cables along CI╔'s rail way lines. It has been suggested the cable-laying for Esat disrupted the £14 million mini-CTC rail signalling project, which is now two years overdue and £36 million over budget.
Mr Carroll said Dr Byrne was exerting "inappropriate" pressure to push the deal through and had agreed initial terms without legal advice.
Mr Carroll said he could not raise these concerns with then chairman, Mr Brian Joyce, either because he felt he would be referred back to Mr McDonnell.
He said whenever a new chairman arrived he used to write to them, enclosing his contact numbers with an invitation to call on him any time. Mr Joyce had replied saying he passed the letter on to Mr McDonnell.
"I took this to mean that he was not interested in a line of communication and that anything should go to Mr McDonnell and I should not trouble him with it," said Mr Carroll.
He added he did not go directly to the CI╔ board because this would have been the "last throw of the dice" and he preferred to find a way of improving the deal without resorting to such action.
Dr Byrne said Mr Carroll's comments were "disgraceful" and he utterly rejected the suggestion that he had placed undue pressure on people. "Everybody worked as a team," he said. "Mr Carroll could have picked up the phone at any time to me or to the chief executive or chairman."
Mr Joyce said he was "nothing short of amazed" at Mr Carroll's evidence. He said Mr Carroll could have spoken to the company secretary or the chief finance officer, either of whom would have passed on his concerns.
He said Mr Carroll could also have spoken to him. "I was very approachable," he said. "I am amazed he was so lily-livered that he could not bring himself to tell anyone."