The chairman of the planning tribunal, Mr Justice Flood, is expected to deliver a controversial ruling today on the procedures to be followed for the cross-examination of Mr James Gogarty when the tribunal resumes today.
The 81-year-old former building company executive is set to resume giving evidence in Dublin Castle this morning after a four-day break, taken when the chairman of the tribunal fell ill with influenza.
Mr Justice Flood has been presented with two options for proceeding by his team of lawyers on the tribunal.
Either he can demand that the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Burke, and others submit more detailed statements regarding the allegations made by Mr Gogarty, or he may decide to hear the evidence of Mr Burke and others first before proceeding with the cross-examination of Mr Gogarty and other parties.
If the chairman chooses to follow either of these options, his ruling is likely to be contested in the High Court. However, the tribunal would continue to sit as normal, at least until Mr Gogarty is finished giving his direct evidence. This is now expected to last most of this week.
Even if the tribunal chairman rejects both options and decides Mr Gogarty's cross-examination should follow immediately upon the completion of his direct evidence, Mr Gogarty's lawyers are almost certain to object.
Tribunal lawyers have called on the chairman to adopt one of their two suggested strategies in response to what they called the "manifest inadequacy" of the statements furnished by Mr Burke and the developer Mr Michael Bailey.
The tribunal lawyers are also unhappy with the "truncated" statements submitted by Mr Gogarty's former employers, Joseph Murphy Structural Engineering.
The statements from these three parties do little to shed any light on the circumstances surrounding a substantial payment to Mr Burke in 1989 and a £50,000 cheque given by Mr Bailey to Mr Gogarty, according to the tribunal lawyers. They are anxious to prevent counsel for Mr Burke and the two builders from "ambushing" Mr Gogarty during cross-examination by raising issues which have not previously been outlined in a statement.
