1 1 THE TRIBUNAL RESUMED AS FOLLOWS ON WEDNESDAY, 2 16TH APRIL, 2008, AT 2:00 P.M: 3 4 CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon, Mr. O'Farrell. 5 6 MR. QUINN: Good afternoon, Sir. Mr. Michael O'Farrell please. 7 8 A. Good afternoon, Chairman. 9 10 MR. MICHAEL O'FARRELL, CONTINUED TO BE QUESTIONED BY MR. QUINN 11 AS FOLLOWS: 12 13 Q.1 MR. QUINN: Good afternoon, Mr. Farrell. Mr. Farrell, I think yesterday 14 afternoon we ended the session whilst dealing with an advance in June 1993, to 15 Barkhill Limited, isn't that correct? 16 A. That's correct. 17 Q.2 And I think if we could have 9751. In June '93, I think in a meeting you had 18 with Mr. O'Callaghan Mr. O'Callaghan had asked you as appears from that 19 memorandum on screen whether or not you had included a sum of 63,000 pounds 20 which had been paid by Riga to Frank Dunlop during the final zoning stage as 21 part of the mark up or the application for additional fees for Barkhill, isn't 22 that correct? 23 A. Just if I read it now. 24 Q.3 It says -- 25 A. Yes. 26 Q.4 " ... the discretion on Barkhill, Owen O'Callaghan asked whether we had 27 included a figure of 63,000 which had been paid by Riga to Frank Dunlop during 28 the final zoning stage. I indicated that I was not aware that they had been 29 seeking this figure. It had not been included in the Barkhill schedule of fees 30 due to be paid and accordingly was not covered in that facility. Likewise, no 2 1 additional funds had been sanctioned for Riga other than from the AQD debt and 2 the interest roll up accordingly had not been accommodated here either. Owen 3 O'Callaghan accepted this and said that he would have to deal with the matter 4 in another way." 5 A. Yes, that looks like ... 6 Q.5 Did he give you any indication of what other way he intended to deal with the 7 matter? 8 A. I have no recollection of that. 9 Q.6 Just in relation to the advances being made by Allied Irish Bank, it's fair to 10 say that Allied Irish Bank were advancing to both Riga and Barkhill? 11 A. That's correct. 12 Q.7 In other words they were both customers of the bank? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q.8 In relation to the advances to Barkhill Limited the cheques or the bank drafts 15 were being written within the bank isn't, is that right? 16 A. That's correct. There was no overdraft or current account on Barkhill. 17 Q.9 No current account. So in other words, there was even more control over the 18 disbursements of the Barkhill loan account than there would have been over the 19 Riga loan account for example? 20 A. The Riga loan account in relation to Barkhill. 21 Q.10 Well no just generally. 22 A. Absolutely. We had probably very limited control over the generally over 23 drawdowns of loans. 24 Q.11 Yes. And I think you agreed with me yesterday that Riga up to this point at 25 least, had never made an application for funding or overdraft facilities other 26 than the 1 million pound subordinated loan in respect of any funds being 27 disbursed in relation to either Barkhill or indeed the Stadium project? 28 A. You will have to repeat that sorry. 29 Q.12 It's a little convoluted. 30 A. I said this yesterday oh, God yeah. 3 1 Q.13 We know that there was 1 million pounds advanced by AIB in June 1991 to Riga 2 which was to the subordinated, to the main debt of Barkhill to the bank. 3 A. Yeah. 4 Q.14 And these monies were specifically ear marked as funds being advanced to Riga 5 for their disbursements on behalf of Barkhill, isn't that correct? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q.15 But in the various applications for additional funds by Riga up to and included 8 1993, May 1993 Riga had never put forward a proposal for funding in relation to 9 a Stadium project? 10 A. No, I have no recollection that they did, no. 11 Q.16 Yes. Yet we know and you would have known that irrespective of the, what they 12 had sought funding for, that they were claiming to have made disbursements on 13 behalf of Barkhill over and above the 1 million pounds sanction? 14 A. Yes. I mean they saw, from their perspective they saw the Stadium project as 15 being an inherent part of the Barkhill/Quarryvale strategy. 16 Q.17 Yes. And they were obviously seeking to transfer that debt across to Barkhill 17 and seek some recoupment from Barkhill. 18 A. Correct. 19 Q.18 Just looking at it from the point of view of Riga itself. 20 A. Yes. 21 Q.19 Riga had been a customer of the bank. Was operating on loan facilities from 22 the bank. Had made application for loans facilities in relation to other 23 developments. Had never made an application in relation to the development of 24 a stadium project per se. 25 A. No. I had no recollection of that. The only thing I think I recall is that 26 part of an application for increased overdraft for perhaps this time was to do 27 with the fact that they paid out fees. 28 Q.20 This is the 400,000 that they had claimed in February '93? 29 A. That might be to do with the Stadium, was it, I can't recall? 30 Q.21 When they wrote to you in February '93 and we saw the letter yesterday, that 4 1 they had advised you in relation to that sum. That 150,000 of that had been 2 paid in respect of which invoices had not been produced to the bank etc, isn't 3 that right? 4 A. That's right. 5 Q.22 And 250 had been paid in relation to other Barkhill or Stadium related issues? 6 A. I remember the letter but whatever it states in the letter. I remember the 7 250, 150, yes. 8 Q.23 And now you are being advised that an additional 63,000 has been paid in 9 January '93, to Mr. Dunlop but it hadn't been included in the Barkhill mark up 10 as monies that might have been sanctioned for payment to Riga by way of 11 reimbursement to Riga, isn't that right? 12 A. That's correct. I mean, we went through a process up to, I think I said 13 yesterday that we saw May '93 as being one water shed of a number in the case. 14 And we went through a very detailed process prior to that to identify what 15 needed to be paid to take it up to planning, that figure wasn't included in the 16 schedule. So as far as I was concerned it was out of the picture. 17 Q.24 And we see the disbursement of some of the monies advanced in 1993. If we look 18 at 9834 for example. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q.25 We see a drawdown sanction dated the 1st of July 1993. Signed on behalf of 21 Barkhill by Barry Pitcher and Owen O'Callaghan in accordance with the mandate 22 two directors having signed it, isn't that correct? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q.26 And that's for a sum 56,456 together with a further sum of 2,500 pounds, isn't 25 that correct? 26 A. Yes. 27 Q.27 And those sums I think were, if we could have 9491 please. Were applied in 28 relation to an entity entitled Westside Construction Limited. There was a sum 29 of 17,300 applied to them on the 19th of July. And then the other sums were 30 disbursed to Mr. Maguire, Dublin County Council and Ambrose Kelly, a minor sum 5 1 I think of 156 pounds to the ESB, isn't that right? 2 A. Well you are saying those first five items total the amount of the previous 3 drawdown. 4 Q.28 Yes. 5 A. Yes, that's the case, that's correct. 6 Q.29 And we see the accompanying Riga Limited invoice at 9806, it's dated the 28th 7 of June and it seeks a sum of 8,300 in relation to the repair security on the 8 site and building referred to as Westside Construction. And then for the 9 enclosure of the site and removal of itinerants a sum of 18,500 pounds. And 10 then the planning application for Ambrose Kelly's fees of 30,000, isn't that 11 correct? 12 A. That's correct, yes. 13 Q.30 And that makes I think a total of 56,800. And again, it's signed by both Owen 14 O'Callaghan and Barry Pitcher, isn't that correct? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q.31 And it's directed to Barkhill care of AIB Corporate Banking. 17 A. Yes. 18 Q.32 And on the 28th of June, at 9805, that invoice was forwarded to Ms. Basquille 19 by Mr. O'Callaghan, isn't that correct? 20 A. I assume that's the one that was attached to it, yes. 21 Q.33 Yes. If we look at 9806 we'll see. 22 A. Okay. Fine. 23 Q.34 And then I think there is a further breakdown given at 9823 and a further 24 letter to Ms. Basquille dated the 1st of July '93. And it says "having spoken 25 to you this morning on the telephone I now enclose the following. A drawn down 26 request signed by myself. Corp invoices and correspondence to substantiate the 27 Riga invoice separately sent to you" and then he deals with the other matters 28 there, isn't that correct? 29 A. Yes. 30 Q.35 And we see for example at 9825, the letter from dated the 15th of June 1993, 6 1 from Seamus Maguire & Co. contains a manuscript signed note both by Mr. 2 O'Callaghan, Mr. Pitcher confirming that the amount is payable, isn't that 3 correct? 4 A. Yeah. 5 Q.36 And then the invoice is accompanying that at 9826, from Westside Construction. 6 "Deal with protection to the lands at Quarryvale as agreed." There is an 7 invoice at 9826, 9827, 9828, 9829. 8 A. Okay. 9 Q.37 And 9830. And we see the cheque I think, in relation to further drawdown on 10 that account I think was a cheque in relation to Arc Life for Mr. O'Callaghan's 11 life insurance and we see that being paid. Sorry not from that account but 12 from a Riga account being paid on the 19th of July 1993 at 9490. I think that 13 had been something that you had been seeking for some time, isn't that correct? 14 That Mr. O'Callaghan would take out -- 15 A. Yes. 16 Q.38 -- a policy that was part of the terms or conditions. 17 A. Absolutely yes, it was something, is there something here I should read or. 18 Q.39 No I'm just putting on it on the record and bringing it to your attention and 19 asking you to condition firm that is in fact the case. 20 21 And then I think in June '93, on 23rd of June '93 at 9793, Mr. O'Callaghan 22 received from Ambrose Kelly an invoice headed "Quarryvale master plan" payment 23 schedule as per attached chart showing in all I think a sum of 295,000 being 24 due in relation to the planning applications in respect of Quarryvale, isn't 25 that correct? 26 A. Yes. Excuse me. 27 Q.40 And I think if we look at the first of the sums there mentioned at 9907 on the 28 21st of July '93. Mr. Kelly sent to Mr. Aidan Lucey of Riga Limited, an 29 invoice in relation to Quarryvale master plan entitled "pro forma invoice" 30 seeking recovery I think in the sum of 108,900 pounds that's giving discount of 7 1 30,000 pounds which had been paid know on the 3rd of May '93. 2 A. Yes, that's what the invoice states, yes. 3 Q.41 And then I think subsequently if we look at 9993. On the 23rd of August '93 a 4 further invoice was sent to Owen O'Callaghan from Ambrose Kelly in relation to 5 "professional services as agreed" seeking the recovery of 114,950 pounds? 6 A. Uh-huh. 7 Q.42 Which was 95,000 together with VAT of 19,500. 8 A. Okay. 9 Q.43 And I think if we look at 9996. We again see the bank statement showing the 10 sum of 95,000 being debited to the account. Do you see that on the 27th of 11 August '93? 12 A. I do, yes. 13 Q.44 I think the position in relation to that was that the VAT element of that 14 invoice had in fact been paid by Riga and presumably Riga had recovered or 15 reclaimed that element of the invoice as part of their VAT returned, isn't that 16 correct? Or were you aware of that level of detail? 17 A. No. 18 Q.45 At this stage? 19 A. No, I do recall. In fact it was mentioned yesterday in some of the 20 documentation that appeared on the screen, something about VAT payments would 21 have to be sorted out with Deloitte & Touche and I think that was followed up 22 with Aidan Lucey I think it was an outstanding point. 23 Q.46 For example on the 17th of August 1993, at 9984, Mr. O'Callaghan wrote to 24 Ms. Basquille enclosing for her attention invoices for payments due on behalf 25 of Barkhill. And if we look at an invoice at 9985, Riga Limited. Do you see 26 this is a Riga invoice to Barkhill Limited care of AIB Corporate Banking dated 27 17th of August '93 and it has a note across "amended". 28 A. Yes. 29 Q.47 It refers to the architect's fees of 114,950 being fee for full planning 30 application 95,000 together with VAT of 19,950. 8 1 A. Yes I see that. 2 Q.48 But there is a further invoice which appears to have been sent to the bank on 3 the 23rd of August '93. If I could have 9986 please, again dated 17th of 4 August '93, but this time the architect's fee has been left at 95,000 and there 5 is a note at the bottom saying "Net of VAT. VAT to be reclaimed by Riga 6 Limited". 7 A. Yes. 8 Q.49 And it's signed by Owen O'Callaghan and Barry Pitcher, is that correct? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q.50 And I think further invoices were received within the bank, isn't that correct, 11 in relation to the drawdowns at various stages in relation to the loan? 12 A. I'm sure they were, yes. 13 Q.51 Now, yesterday I think we touched very briefly on the issue of bank board 14 meetings -- sorry Barkhill board meetings. 15 A. Yes. 16 Q.52 And there were a series -- there were no meetings I think in '92 but there were 17 a series of meetings starting in '93, isn't that correct? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q.53 And you would have attended or would have been invited to attend a number of 20 those board meetings, isn't that correct? 21 A. Yes, I think any meeting that -- probably them all actually. 22 Q.54 Yes. And if we start with, a meeting which was scheduled for the 4th of 23 February 1993, I think if we could have 9184 please. It is a letter of the 4th 24 of February '93, addressed to Mary Basquille enclosing a suggested agenda which 25 he suggested might be copied to Tom Gilmartin. And we see that suggested 26 agenda for a meeting which was due to take place on the 9th of February '93 at 27 9185. And I think that there had been a phone conversation with Mr. Gilmartin 28 on the 9th of February at 9237. Where she records Mr. Gilmartin as having 29 advised despite previous indications to the contrary that he would not be 30 attending the meeting, isn't that correct? 9 1 A. That's correct. 2 Q.55 And his noted reason for non-attendance was lack of funds. 3 A. Yes. 4 Q.56 Isn't that correct? 5 A. That's correct. 6 Q.57 And the note further records that "Dave McGrath spoke to Tom and advised that 7 AIB would fund his travelling costs and arrange a return flight ticket to be 8 collected at Heathrow". Isn't that correct? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q.58 I think Mr. Gilmartin's evidence was to the effect that despite the fact that 11 he had invested substantial monies in this project and despite the fact that 12 the project was paying out substantial monies to others, that the funds placed 13 at disposal by the bank were confined to the flight costs only isn't that 14 correct and did not include taxi and other fares? 15 A. Well I didn't, I don't recall reading that in the testimony but I certainly 16 take it as you are saying that was his testimony. But let me just state that, 17 I mean, that might be the position he might take. From the bank's point of 18 view Tom Gilmartin was a shareholder in Barkhill. He had signed a 19 shareholder's agreement where Owen O'Callaghan was the project manager. Owen 20 O'Callaghan was running the project and certainly we had no obligation 21 whatsoever, either to agree to pay money from Barkhill or indeed to pay money 22 ourselves to fund Tom Gilmartin's lifestyle or travel even to the meetings. 23 This was an act of kindness as -- 24 Q.59 On the part of AIB? 25 A. On the part of AIB, yeah. 26 Q.60 Now that meeting -- 27 A. And it was in the context as I said yesterday, of recognising that he had other 28 money invested in the company and we were keen that he would be working with us 29 rather than any possibilities of working against us. 30 Q.61 That meeting did take place on the 9th of February at 9230, we see a list of 10 1 the matters discussed at that meeting. And at 9232 we see your note. Sorry 2 Ms. Basquille's note of the meeting also, isn't that correct? 3 A. Uh-huh. 4 Q.62 And again, we find confirmation there that Mr. Fitzgerald the County Manager, 5 would accept a planning application from Barkhill prior to finalisation of the 6 Draft Development Plan? 7 A. What the note states is that Owen O'Callaghan confirmed that, yes. 8 Q.63 Yes. And also discussed at that meeting were the outstanding fees due to 9 creditors and 9233 we see a list of those fees and that was the precursor to 10 the advance in May '93, isn't that right? 11 A. Yes and there were probably further meetings after that. 12 Q.64 Yes we'll come to those. 13 A. Yes. Fine. 14 Q.65 And I think Mr. O'Callaghan advised that meeting that as a priority the 15 priority was to obtain planning permission for the site and to get anchor 16 tenants -- 17 A. Yes. 18 Q.66 -- committed to the site. 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q.67 As he felt it would be unlikely that development partners would be prepared to 21 commit themselves unless these issues had been finalised, would that be a fair 22 summary of what's? 23 A. That's what the note says yes. 24 Q.68 Apart from what the notes says. Is that your recollection of what was said at 25 the meeting? 26 A. As I stated yesterday, and it applies to today also. My recollection of 27 individual meetings is informed by these notes, as one would expect, it's 15 28 years ago. So I am very happy to accept the notes as being contemporaneous 29 notes. 30 Q.69 I think there was disappointment within the bank of Mr. Gilmartin's 11 1 non-attendance. If we go to 9239. I think on the 10th February '93, 2 Mr. McGrath wrote to Mr. Gilmartin, isn't that correct, conveying his extreme 3 disappointment at his last minute decision not to attend the meeting. 4 A. That's correct we saw this yesterday. 5 Q.70 Now, I think there was a further meeting then scheduled for later in March on 6 the 24th of March. And again at 9341, I think Mr. Deane wrote to Mr. Maguire 7 who was the secretary of the company asking that he would call a board meeting 8 for the 24th of March at 3 p.m. and he enclosed a schedule of agenda for that 9 meeting, which was at 9342. Would you have seen that schedule or agenda for 10 the upcoming board meeting in advance of the board meeting? 11 A. I'm sure I did, yes, I'm sure I did. 12 Q.71 And the actual minutes of that meeting of the 24th of March are at 9367 to 13 9369. And I think it records your attendance at the meeting together -- 14 A. Yes. 15 Q.72 -- with Mr. Pitcher, Mr. O'Callaghan and others, isn't that correct? 16 A. Yes, yes. 17 Q.73 And I think that Mr. McGrath joined the meeting at some stage? 18 A. That's what the note states, yes. 19 Q.74 Yes. Now, the issues being discussed at that meeting in March '93, related to 20 the Council lands, the planning permission and the issue of finance, isn't that 21 correct and we see that at 9368? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q.75 And obviously, throughout this period one of the outstanding issues was the 24 question of the company accounts which were being worked on by Deloitte & 25 Touche. 26 A. Yes, yes. 27 Q.76 The next meeting was scheduled for the 28th of April '93. Although the note 28 provided, I think that in the event of the date not suiting Mr. Gilmartin or in 29 the event of Mr. Gilmartin requiring an alternative date for a meeting it was 30 suggested Mr. Gilmartin would supply a choice of alternative dates? 12 1 A. That's correct. And also that if it would suit him, we could have the meeting 2 take place in Luton. 3 Q.77 And again at 9385 Mr. McGrath again wrote to Mr. Gilmartin, following on that 4 meeting conveying his disappointment at his decision not to attend the meeting? 5 A. I think it was all done in the context of prior commitments, or commitments 6 priors to the meetings that he would attend, and at the last minute he pulled 7 out. 8 Q.78 Now, did you know that Mr. Gilmartin on the 26th of March 1993, at 9391, had 9 contacted Ms. Basquille complaining about matters relating to himself and his 10 involvement and the bank's involvement with Barkhill? 11 A. I have no doubt I saw this note. Let me just read it. 12 Q.79 Perhaps if I take it up at the second paragraph. 13 A. Okay. 14 Q.80 "Tom then launched into past grievances complaining about blackmail and corrupt 15 practices in relation to the putting in place of the shareholders agreement 16 referred to the fact that Barkhill was and still should be his deal and 17 expressed dissatisfaction at the fact that he is not being consulted into any 18 decisions taken by the company. I responded that these were matters better 19 suited to discussion at board meetings. And that in my view his failure to 20 attend scheduled meetings appeared to signal a lack of interest in the 21 company's affairs to the other shareholders." 22 23 Would Ms. Basquille have brought the conversation she had with Mr. Gilmartin to 24 your attention? 25 A. Oh, yes. I would have been aware of that. 26 Q.81 And to the attention of Mr. McGrath and others? 27 A. I don't know but about Mr. McGrath but certainly I would have been aware that 28 this was an ongoing grievance by Mr. Gilmartin. 29 Q.82 Had Mr. Gilmartin up to this point brought these grievances to your attention? 30 A. Well I can't recall whether there's file notes of -- 13 1 Q.83 Well leaving aside the file notes for a moment. Mr. Gilmartin's evidence to 2 the Tribunal has been that he has, he had been engaging with the bank 3 throughout this period in relation to the payments for example to Mr. Dunlop 4 and Shefran Limited. And had been complaining about Mr. Dunlop's involvement 5 and had been querying the round sum payments to Shefran Limited. 6 A. I have no recollection of that. 7 Q.84 You take issue with Mr. Gilmartin in relation to that? 8 A. I have no recollection. Sure the payments to Shefran were done well before. 9 Q.85 Yes. 10 11 JUDGE FAHERTY: Just on that point, Mr. O'Farrell. 12 A. Yes, Judge. 13 14 JUDGE FAHERTY: My recollection is; in December of 1992, Mr. Fleming had 15 written to a number of parties including Mr. Gilmartin and Ms. Basquille or 16 cc'd it I think. 17 A. Deloitte & Touche. 18 19 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes, yes. To Mr. O'Callaghan where there was a number of 20 things that he was querying and wanted information on. 21 A. Okay. 22 23 JUDGE FAHERTY: And I can I think they included a number of items which 24 included the three 1991 Shefran payments. 25 A. Okay. 26 27 JUDGE FAHERTY: So while it was historical by 1993, that the Shefran payments 28 had been made, certainly. 29 A. It was granted. 30 14 1 JUDGE FAHERTY: Mr. Fleming of Deloitte & Touch was pursuing this from an 2 accountancy point of view as I understand it. 3 A. It okay. 4 5 JUDGE FAHERTY: And I just want to ask you in that context. I noted on the 6 agenda that Mr. Deane supplied or prepared in advance of the board meetings in 7 March or in February and March, that the company accounts were on the agenda. 8 Have you, and I think you were at those board meetings. 9 A. I was in attendance at them, yes. 10 11 JUDGE FAHERTY: Did Mr. Fleming's query and the letter sent to the various 12 individuals including I think Mr. O'Callaghan and Mr. Gilmartin being board 13 directors, were the company accounts discussed at the board meetings? 14 A. I'm sure they were, Judge. But I'd really have to go by what the minute 15 records. But certainly it was an objective that the accounts be brought 16 up-to-date because they had to be, to be sent to the Companies Office to ensure 17 that the company wasn't struck off. So that certainly was an ongoing agenda 18 item. So I'm sure they were discussed. 19 20 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes. But what would be, what Mr. Fleming was looking for I 21 think was back up documentation. 22 A. Right. 23 24 JUDGE FAHERTY: In regard to various payments. I just wanted to know from 25 your recollection, whether you recollect this as a matter that was being given 26 attention and being raised at board level? 27 A. I think I can just go by the minutes that are there but as I say, I think it 28 was an objective to have the accounts done so I have no doubt Mr. Fleming said 29 it was probably considered. And I think at this point in time, we would be 30 relying on Deloitte & Touche to bring the accounts up-to-date. Certainly any 15 1 information they required from us we would have provided. 2 3 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes but they were obviously relying on the various individuals 4 by the same token to supply the information. 5 A. Absolutely and any information we were required to provide we would have 6 provided. 7 8 Q.86 MR. QUINN: Just in relation to the accounts situation. I think Mr. Fleming 9 or, Mr. O'Farrell, at 7647 on the 26th of June '92, having taken up the 10 appointment as auditors to the company, Deloitte & Touche wrote I think to the 11 directors of Barkhill copying the correspondence as we see from 7648 to Mr. 12 Gilmartin, Mr. Kay and Mr. O'Callaghan. But if we go back to 7647, that 13 correspondence I think advised the directors that arising from their exercise 14 that they had established that the company had no formal books and records and 15 that the records which did exist were incomplete deficient in many respects, 16 isn't that correct? 17 A. That's what the letter states, yes. 18 Q.87 And that audit of the company which had been commenced in May 1992 was 19 continuing throughout 1992 and into '93, isn't that correct? 20 A. I think that's right. I can't recall when it was completed. 21 Q.88 Yes. And in fact if we for example look at 8459 we see a fax from Mr. Lucey to 22 Deloitte & Touche enclosing a list of invoices which he had received from 23 Allied Irish Bank. And we see those invoices at 8460. And they include 24 invoices to Ambrose Kelly Auveen Byrne and Frank Dunlop & Associates, isn't 25 that correct? 26 A. That's correct. 27 Q.89 And one of the invoices of the 18th of June '92 to Ambrose Kelly in the sum of 28 15,000, well more correctly 19,064.76 pounds to include VAT refer to the new 29 national Stadium, isn't that right? 30 A. That's what the note states, yes. 16 1 Q.90 And I think Ms. Basquille had paid if we look at a sum of 6,050 pounds on 13th 2 of November '92, or prior to that had paid that money to Deloitte & Touche, 3 isn't that correct? And we saw that sanction coming through yesterday and we 4 saw the cheque on the No. 2 account when we were looking at the operation of 5 that No. 2 Barkhill account yesterday? 6 A. This is in respect of their fee is it? 7 Q.91 Yes, yes. 8 A. Yes. 9 Q.92 I think there were further fees due. But in any event I think by the 15th of 10 December 1992. If we could have 8784, please. I think Deloitte & Touche were 11 narrowing their queries in relation to the accounts, isn't that correct? And 12 again that's correspondence as we'll see at 8785 which was copied to Mary 13 Basquille AIB as it was to Mr. Gilmartin and Mr. O'Callaghan? 14 A. Okay. 15 Q.93 And if we return to 8784. And if we look at the second last paragraph I think 16 it provides that "At this point we have comprehensively examined all 17 documentation received in support of the payments and transactions of Barkhill 18 Limited and we have noted that there are certain items for which no supporting 19 documentation has been received". 20 A. Okay. 21 Q.94 Isn't that correct? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q.95 And it went on to provide that "there was a schedule of the relevant 24 payments/transactions attached". And if we go to the schedule attached and if 25 we look at 8792, I think there is a schedule entitle "payments/transactions" 26 for which Deloitte & Touche have received no supporting documentation. 27 A. Yes. 28 Q.96 And I think items No. 6 there referred to the three amounts paid to Shefran 29 from the Riga subordinated loan on the following dates, 16th of May, 30th of 30 May and 13th of June '91? 17 1 A. Yes. 2 Q.97 And I think a further query there related to two amounts of 10,000 pounds each 3 described as "sundry" in the Riga reimbursements from AIB No. 2 account on the 4 24th of January '92, which were apparently paid to Tom Gilmartin, isn't that 5 correct? 6 A. Yes, these were the ones referred to yesterday. 7 Q.98 Yes. So you knew and the bank knew, I suggest to you, that by late 1992 there 8 were outstanding issues with the accounts which included a missing invoices in 9 relation to Shefran and missing invoices in relation to the two sundry items, 10 isn't that correct? 11 A. But that information would have been provided to us absolutely. But like in 12 terms of the import that we would have taken from this, I mean, this was a 13 matter for Riga. This was their money. This was their money that had been 14 spent from their account. So like to say now that these are highlighted as 15 individual items, that's not the way things would have been in 1992. Shefran 16 and indeed the two 10,000s would have been paid by Riga from their account. 17 They were liable for it. And we certainly wouldn't have felt any obligation to 18 go and chasing these things down. I suggest the board minutes will record, I 19 don't know whether they do or not, that each individual party follow-up their 20 own items. We regarded these items as Riga's responsibility. 21 Q.99 Let's just say what Mr. Lucey had to say about those missing items. If we 22 could have 9195. On the 8th of February '93, having received that letter and 23 in referring to that letter he say : 24 25 "I confirm that the proposed journal numbers 49, 50, 52 all of which relates to 26 transactions which with Riga are correct." Then he says "As regard journal 27 numbers 46, 47, 48 and 51, I can only assume that these journals are correct as 28 they are in respect of information submitted by AIB" and then finally he says 29 "I do not have any further supporting documentation for items 1 to 10 and maybe 30 you would check with AIB if they paid out most of these items. 18 1 So the view within Riga I suggest to you or indeed within Barkhill insofar as 2 Mr. O'Callaghan and Mr. Lucey were concerned, was that these were matters that 3 could perhaps be better addressed to AIB? 4 A. That's what it states, yes. 5 Q.100Yes. And of course AIB had paid on foot of those monies and it had reimbursed 6 I think so Riga in relation to the two 10,000 pounds payments, isn't that 7 correct? 8 A. When you say reimbursed Riga. 9 Q.101You had reimbursed Riga in February '92 in respect of the two 10,000 pounds 10 payments referred to as "sundry" items? 11 A. Were they ... were all of these payments not made from the Riga subordinated 12 loan and it was a balancing loan -- 13 Q.102No. They may very well. The Riga cheques may very well have been drawn on the 14 subordinated loan -- 15 A. Yes. 16 Q.103-- but certainly the payment in January 1992, included the two 10,000 pounds 17 payments and they were made by way of reimbursements. You might recall on 18 screen yesterday and I can put it back on screen if you wish a the authority or 19 mandate signed but not dated by Mr. O'Callaghan and Mr. Pitcher which included 20 a reimbursement to Riga? 21 A. Okay. 22 Q.104Okay. 23 A. Okay, I take that. 24 Q.105And I think that by May 1993 at 9529, the matter still remained to be 25 clarified, isn't that right? Because Deloitte & Touche were still writing to 26 Mr. Deane advising him of outstanding unresolved matters. And if we leaving 27 aside the matters referred to 1 to 8. If you look at 9532. The second last 28 paragraph he says "I did right to Aidan Lucey on the 15th of December '92, 29 setting out what I regarded as the unresolved matters of strict accounting 30 nature. I am attaching to this letter a schedule of payments/transactions for 19 1 which Deloitte & Touche received no supporting documentation. The transactions 2 recorded on this schedule had been booked in the accounts of Barkhill on the 3 basis of discussions and explanations received from Tom Gilmartin, Aidan Lucey, 4 Seamus Maguire and Allied Irish Bank" and again if we look at 9533 we see the 5 accompanying schedule, isn't that correct? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q.106And we know that the issue of the accounts for Barkhill as we say were not 8 signed off on until I think it was January '94. So it's still a very live 9 matter, isn't that correct? 10 A. It appears to be, yes. 11 Q.107And it's something that as an experienced banker you would have been concerned 12 about and you would have been anxious to see finality to, isn't that right? 13 A. Not in the detail of this schedule, no. 14 Q.108But there is absolutely no doubt but from the banker's or the accountants point 15 of view, they were looking to a number of sources for information in relation 16 to matters included Allied Irish Bank? 17 A. That's clear. And as I stated if information was sought from us I have no 18 doubt we provided it. 19 Q.109I think on the 6th of May 1993 at 9550, Mr. Deane forwarded the or referred to 20 the Fleming letter and the outstanding items and a copy of that letter I think 21 was sent to you and indeed Mr. Pitcher within the bank, isn't that right? 22 A. That's correct. 23 Q.110So that letter would have on the 3rd of May, would have been brought to your 24 attention. And I think that there was -- 25 A. I think it's important to make the point there. I would suggest we all try to 26 have our relevant pieces. So it's the pieces relevant to each party. Each 27 party needed to get up-to-date and provide whatever information was needed. 28 Q.111And I think there was in fact a bank meeting or a board meeting on the 28th of 29 April '93 at 9508. And this time Mr. Gilmartin is noted as having attended a 30 part of the meeting, isn't that correct? 20 1 A. Well -- 2 Q.112Do you see Tom Gilmartin director part of meeting only? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q.113And I think that the site matters and the planning permission had been dealt 5 with before he arrived. And then Mr. O'Callaghan gave a resume to that meeting 6 to that point and Mr. Gilmartin requested copy of the site layout, something 7 Mr. O'Callaghan undertook to provide him with it, isn't that correct? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q.114And I think that finance was obviously an issue at this stage in April '93 and 10 that was discussed and a report was given to the board on the current financial 11 position of the company. And the board were advised that the issue of finance 12 would be made or an application for finance would be made on the 6th of May 13 '93. And at 9509, I think Mr. Gilmartin is noted as having raised the issue of 14 outstanding creditors. And it records that these were explained by Mr. 15 O'Callaghan? 16 A. Okay. 17 Q.115Again, I think you were at that board meeting, isn't that right? 18 A. Yes, yes. 19 Q.116And it's recorded in relation to the outstanding accounts under the heading 20 "company matters": Serious concern was expressed on the question of the 21 completion of the accounts and the filing of returns in the Companies Office. 22 John Deane reported that he had written twice to Leo Fleming for a list of 23 outstanding items and he would continue to pursue this as a matter of urgency." 24 And then under the heading "any other business". Mr. O'Callaghan explained the 25 up-to-date position with the stadium and the Sharkey lands. And Mr. Gilmartin 26 handed over a writ by the corporation for interest. Which had presumably been 27 received by him, is that correct? 28 A. Presumably. 29 Q.117And do you recall that meeting, Mr. O'Farrell, attended by Mr. Gilmartin? 30 A. No, not so much. 21 1 Q.118It would appear to be the only meeting attended by Mr. Gilmartin in 1993? 2 A. Correct. 3 Q.119I may be incorrect in that? 4 A. No I think you are probably right but for the sake of repeating myself again. 5 I don't recall any of these meetings specifically. If the file wasn't there I 6 would have absolutely no recollection of it. The file note is to help me 7 recall and certainly I will expand on anything that is in the file but in terms 8 of the detail of these meetings and who said what and what happened. How could 9 I recall it 16 years letter? 10 Q.120But you certainly have no recollection of Mr. Gilmartin for example seeking 11 details of the Shefran, the company called Shefran and demanding to know who 12 Shefran was or what their involvement with the project was? 13 A. Absolutely no recollection. And like I think Mr. Kay covered some of this in 14 his testimony where he made the point that at least as far back as June '92 15 conversations took place with Mr. Gilmartin in relation to Shefran and Dunlop 16 being one of the same. There was never any agenda about that or hidden agenda. 17 That was always the case. 18 Q.121Mr. Gilmartin has given evidence to the Tribunal that at some of these meetings 19 he accused Mr. O'Callaghan and Mr. Deane of being a pair of gangsters. Did you 20 ever hear Mr. Gilmartin make an accusation like that at the meetings? 21 A. Well when you say some these meetings. There was only one meeting in '93 where 22 they attended and I don't remember that specifically, no. 23 Q.122At any meeting between '93, '94, '95 or indeed early '96? 24 A. No, I infer I never remember him specifically calling using the word gangsters 25 but he may have used it. 26 Q.123Yes. 27 A. Because I think certainly in '95 there were some very heated -- maybe it's in 28 '96. No '95 there were some very heated meetings and some fairly rough 29 language. 30 Q.124And when you say there were heated meetings. Are you suggesting that there 22 1 were heated meetings in that Mr. Gilmartin was making an allegations against 2 others present at the meetings? 3 A. Yes, he would have been. I think in '96 he would have been back to -- 4 something you had on the screen. The conversation he had with Mary Basquille 5 and the one you had on the screen a couple minutes ago. 6 Q.125Yes? 7 A. Where he would have been saying this was his project. The shareholders 8 agreement was illegal. He was coerced and so on. 9 Q.126Yes. But did he ever go so far as to make allegations concerning the method or 10 the manner in which Mr. O'Callaghan went about obtaining zoning on his lands or 11 the people he retained or the fact that monies, these monies, his monies as he 12 saw it were expended on bribing councillors? 13 A. Absolutely not. 14 Q.127If he had used the expression that Mr. O'Callaghan and Mr. Deane were gangsters 15 what do you think he was referring to? 16 A. I'd say just feeling that he'd been, he'd been ousted from the company in terms 17 of the history of it back in 1991. 18 Q.128Mr. Maguire -- 19 A. Certainly there was never. I never remember, I never recall that phrase 20 "bribe" being used, never. 21 Q.129Yes. Mr. Maguire, with who I think attended a lot of these meetings -- 22 A. Yes. 23 Q.130-- gave evidence and said that it was true that Mr. Gilmartin had said this. 24 A. He had said bribes. 25 Q.131No. That he had said and called Mr. Deane and Mr. O'Callaghan a pair of 26 gangsters. 27 A. That's his testimony. 28 Q.132Is to the type of thing that you wouldn't forget I suggest to you if you were 29 attending the meetings irrespective of what was contained in the minutes of the 30 meetings. 23 1 A. I disagree. 2 Q.133You -- 3 A. I disagree that I wouldn't have. They were, as I saids to you, in some of 4 these meetings, in '95 in particular, there were some very heated discussions. 5 Some very irrational comments made and some very rough language used. And you 6 can be certain that the file note doesn't record the chapter and verse of that 7 language. 8 Q.134Yes. Now, I think there was a meeting then on the 16th of June '93 at 9737. 9 We see the agenda for the meeting and the actual meeting itself or the minutes 10 of the meeting are to be found at 9738. And included amongst the items 11 discussed at that meeting were the council lands, the planning permission, the 12 interest to date of the scheme and the finance. And I think at that stage a 13 draft letter of offer had been produced to the meeting and was the subject of 14 some discussion? 15 A. Right. 16 Q.135And I think the issue was put the issue of the letter of offer was put back to 17 the 24th of June. But I think at that meeting there was consideration of the 18 letter which I had on screen a moment ago the 3rd of May '93, to Mr. Deane, 19 isn't that correct? And we see that at 9739. 20 A. I don't know now just to ... 21 Q.136You see that? 22 A. 9739? These are the company matters. 23 Q.137Yes. And the letter? 24 A. This was the letter setting out the outstanding items yes okay. 25 Q.138That letter is at 9529. 26 A. Okay. 27 Q.139And this is, I think you yourself did your own note of that meeting which is to 28 be found at pages 9746 to 9750, isn't that correct? 29 A. I'll see it now. Yes. That's my note, yes. 30 Q.140And I think at 9749 under the heading "Deloitte & Touche" you record that the 24 1 letter of the 3rd of May 1993 from Deloitte & Touche to John Deane was 2 reviewed, isn't that right? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q.141Now, I am not going to go through the review as noted by you. But if we go to 5 9750 at item No. 9 you record the following "schedule of claims and 6 transactions noted". 7 8 And the schedule that we're referring to is the one that I had on screen a 9 moment ago. And we'll see it now at 9539. And what I want to ask you, 10 Mr. O'Farrell, is do you have a recollection of a discussion on that schedule 11 at that meeting on the 16th of June '93? 12 A. No, I don't. 13 Q.142Do you recall for example anyone present at that meeting dealing with the 14 Shefran amounts and why or how there were no invoices available? 15 A. No, I don't. 16 Q.143The document on screen appears to be contain handwriting which may be Mr. 17 O'Callaghan's. And you will see under identify item No. 6 dealing with the 18 Shefran missing Shefran invoices the manuscript notes on the right "no invoices 19 for June election" do you see that or "for election"? 20 A. Well that's, is that what it states? 21 Q.144Well if you? 22 A. It's not my writing so I can't confirm. It's a bit hieroglyphic. 23 Q.145Even to the right of the three figures of "25, 40 and 15" there appears to be 24 written "no invoices". 25 A. Okay. 26 Q.146Do you recall any discussion of that meeting centering on advice to the meeting 27 that the monies had been paid in relation to the June elections or that there 28 were no invoices in existence? 29 A. No recollection at all. 30 Q.147Do you recall any discussion on the two amounts of 10,000 pounds described as 25 1 sundries? 2 A. No. 3 Q.148No? 4 A. Nor do I recall any discussion in relation to any of the other items on that 5 list and there was obviously quite a number of them outstanding. 6 Q.149Yes. Your record of that meeting just has the 9750 the phrase schedule of 7 claims and transactions noted. What did you mean by "noted"? 8 A. Noted, I can only assume that these were I think some of the other documents we 9 saw on the screen earlier on said that the books of Barkhill weren't very good 10 up to this and Deloitte & Touche were into trying to sort that out and perhaps 11 and this is speculation, perhaps we went through the list on the basis that 12 these were items that were outstanding and there was no documentation for them 13 so maybe it was noted that they would be accepted as being liabilities of 14 Barkhill. 15 Q.150Yes. 16 A. But I have no recollection. 17 Q.151You have no recollection of it? 18 A. No. 19 Q.152At 9747. I think under the heading "zoning" you record queries raised by you 20 isn't that right and in relation to issues regarding zoning decision. You say 21 "That I raised the issue of a recent zoning decision which had been proved 22 controversial in north County Dublin." 23 24 CHAIRMAN: Sorry. Just slow down please. 25 26 MR. QUINN: Sorry. "Owen O'Callaghan had indicated that he had been watching 27 this closely and was happy that he would not effect the overall zoning 28 process." And then the note continues as follows "I queried the recent vote 29 in relation to Quarryvale which had been reported in the paper see attached 30 extract. This appears to conflict with the amendment as had been proposed in 26 1 Dublin County Council, see extract of proposal dated 27th April 1993 attached. 2 3 Owen O'Callaghan had indicated that this was not the case at all. He was in 4 the chamber on the day of the vote. The whole purpose of which had been to 5 copper fasten the fact that the previous decision had been for 250,000 square 6 feet net retail space. The way the proposal had been perceived was an effort 7 to lift the ceiling but in the event the proposal that "this district town 8 centre should be in the order of but not exceeding 250,000 square feet retail 9 floor space" was accepted. 10 11 This was put forward by Colm Tyndall PD, who is one of the signatories of the 12 original proposal and would be one of the people on Owen O'Callaghan's side in 13 the Council. Accordingly, he is very happy with his confirmation and the 14 matter is now being aired again with no great problems. He anticipates no 15 difficulty when the result of the public display as considered by the 16 councillors in a few months time. 17 18 He also made the point that the proposal defined the centre as district town 19 centre as distinct from a district centre. The later could have implicit 20 restrictions regarding size". 21 22 Do you recall that discuss discussion with Mr. O'Callaghan and that 23 clarification being given by him? 24 A. No. 25 Q.153No. 26 A. But, I mean, as I've said numerous times. I accept my note as being 27 contemporaneous and is accurate of what was said at the meeting. 28 Q.154Yes. And I think in fact at 9749 Mr. O'Callaghan again raised the issue of the 29 63,000 pounds fee paid by Riga to Mr. Dunlop. We see there on the second 30 paragraph "Owen O'Callaghan raised the matter of the fee of 63,000 pounds which 27 1 had been paid by Riga Frank Dunlop and asked if this had been included in our 2 consideration. I confirmed that it had not been and that I was not aware of 3 same and that it would be inappropriate to revert at this stage". 4 Presumably you had already made your pitch so to speak in relation to the 5 financing of Barkhill? 6 A. Well I'd approval on the basis that it had been submitted and it didn't include 7 this. So I wasn't going to go back. 8 Q.155I think that approval was the subject of a offer letter which we dealt with 9 yesterday. Which itself was the subject of discussion and approval at a board 10 meeting on 24th June '93 at 9796. I think at item No. 6 the draft letter from 11 the shareholders relating to the borrowing was considered. And I think there 12 was some discussion about the issue of a fee of 250,000 pounds and I think Mr. 13 Gilmartin was telephoned for his opinion on the matter and his approval was 14 sought and given. Yesterday I think I put on screen his written approval for 15 that offer on behalf of Barkhill. 16 A. Yeah. 17 Q.156As -- 18 A. Could you just go up back up the page a second, please. 19 Q.157Yes. 20 A. Keep going. Yeah . No. 3 there oh, yeah that's the one. 21 Q.158"It was noted that Tom Gilmartin was unable to attend at the last minute. 22 However he could be contacted by telephone." 23 A. Yeah. 24 Q.159Now, I think the issue of the accounts remained a live issue until I think 25 October '93, when there was a meeting, a further board meeting on the 13th of 26 October '93, isn't that correct? And we see that meeting at 10253. This is 27 your note of the meeting. And I think representatives from Deloitte & Touche 28 were present at that meeting, isn't that's correct? 29 A. Was this a board meeting? 30 Q.160Well certainly if we look at the agenda for a meeting on the 13th of October 28 1 1993 at 10258 and the letter dated the 4th of October '93, from Mr. Maguire to 2 you enclosing that agenda at 10216. It would appear that it was intended that 3 there would be a board meeting on that date? 4 A. Okay. 5 Q.161Yes. 6 A. And was one of the agenda items on that a meeting with Deloitte & Touche? 7 Q.162Yes. We see -- 8 A. That's fine. 9 Q.163And in fact we see -- 10 A. Nothing turns on it. 11 Q.164The official minutes of the meeting at 10259. And again I think you are noted 12 as having been -- 13 A. That's fine, yes, okay. 14 Q.165Look at item No. 3 "Leo Fleming and Frank Bowen were invited to join the 15 meeting for the purposes of discussing the accounts". 16 A. Thank you, yes that's fine. 17 Q.166Just in relation to the minutes of the meeting on screen. Who prepared those 18 minutes, do you know? 19 A. I think, I think generally John Deane prepared those minutes. 20 Q.167And I think that if we look at 10253. You generally prepared your own minutes 21 of meetings of notes to file of meetings, isn't that right? 22 A. Yes, yes. And the reason that was probably was because I would do the minutes 23 from John Deane may not come for a few days. I think they used to come fairly 24 quickly. So this note was probably done fairly soon after the meeting. 25 Q.168And again, who would have access to your notes of those meetings? 26 A. Who would have access? 27 Q.169Yes. 28 A. Well these would be, these notes of the meeting would be placed on the Barkhill 29 file within Corporate Banking. And the team, my team would have had access, 30 access, they would have access but they wouldn't have been accessing them 29 1 unless they had some purpose. Mary Basquille and I generally would access 2 them. They obviously would -- files, not my files, the bank files so they 3 would be available to, if my superiors ever wanted to get the file, which would 4 be most unusual. 5 Q.170Yes. 6 A. So generally, the files were handled by myself and Mary Basquille. 7 Q.171Yes. Now, we saw a moment ago that when Mr. Gilmartin attended the meeting in 8 April '93, he brought with him a summons which he had received in relation to 9 interest outstanding on the purchase of the Quarryvale site from Dublin 10 Corporation, isn't that correct? At 22543, I think he had been served with a 11 summons on the 19th of April or a summons dated the 19th of April '93, seeking 12 recovery as we see at 22544 a sum of 404,000 pounds odd in respect of interest 13 outstanding on the delayed closing of the corporation lands, isn't that 14 correct? And he had handed that over at the meeting. 15 A. Okay. 16 Q.172I think it was noted at the meeting. 17 A. Okay. 18 Q.173And I think at this time also I think an issue arose in relation to a claim for 19 fees by Connell Wilson who had acted for Mr. Gilmartin, isn't that correct? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q.174And we saw again at that meeting at April '93, Mr. Gilmartin is noted as having 22 raised the issue of outstanding creditors, isn't that correct? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q.175And I think some of these creditors were outstanding from the original advance 25 being made to him or the shareholders agreement of September '91, isn't that 26 correct? 27 A. I am sorry. They were made in advance of that. 28 Q.176Yes. Claims had been made -- 29 A. They were made. 30 Q.177And Mr. Gilmartin's evidence to the Tribunal was that in relation to some of 30 1 those claims in particular in relation to a claim by Ove Arup he had an 2 assurance from Mr. Dave McGrath that these sums would be paid in due course, 3 isn't that correct? You may or may not be aware that was his evidence. 4 A. I am not aware that was his evidence. I would be surprised if it was correct 5 but you I'm sure you will ask Mr. McGrath that. 6 Q.178Yes. But there is no doubt but that Mr. Gilmartin when he entered into the 7 shareholders agreement in September '91, was carrying with him a number of 8 outstanding creditors, isn't that correct? 9 A. There were as I understand it there were a number, Connell Wilson and I think 10 Taggarts. 11 Q.179And one of Mr. Gilmartin's complaints as such after 1991, was the preference of 12 by Barkhill and in particular Mr. O'Callaghan with the assistance of the bank, 13 of the new creditors so to speak like for instance Mr. Dunlop Shefran and 14 Mr. Ambrose Kelly over his creditors? 15 A. That was one of his complaints? 16 Q.180Yes. Was that one much his complaints with -- 17 A. Was that one of his complaints to us? 18 Q.181Yes? 19 A. Yes, he was very sore that I think Taggarts and Connell Wilson hadn't been 20 paid. As far as we were concerned it was a matter for Mr. O'Callaghan. 21 Q.182Yes. Now, at 9845, I think we see a summons which issued out of the Queens 22 Bench Division of the High Court Justice in Milton Keynes to Barkhill Limited 23 seeking the recovery of 150,000 pounds by Connell Wilson Limited, isn't that 24 correct? And that appears to be dated 8th of July 1993. 25 A. Yes, yes. 26 Q.183And this is obviously something that would have been live at that board meeting 27 in October '93, isn't that correct? And it was something -- 28 A. If the minutes record it I'm sure it was. 29 Q.184Yes. And it was something I think that was dealt with if we look for example 30 of your board meeting note on that meeting the 13th of October '93, at 10256. 31 1 And if we look at 10257 the last item "Connell Wilson fee. They are taking 2 action in the UK on this matter and the company has asked Frys to act in 3 defence. Frys have passed the matter on to another firm of solicitors in the 4 UK and they are filing a defence and require a cheque for 400 pounds which I 5 agreed to pay. Again the strategy here is to stretch this matter out as far as 6 possible while dealing with same to avoid the judgement to arise." Isn't that 7 correct? 8 A. That's what it states, yes. 9 Q.185And that was the approach. The bank could have settled that fee but I think at 10 that stage -- 11 A. Sorry the bank had no obligation to settle this fee. 12 Q.186Barkhill could have settled the fee and the bank were bankers to Barkhill and 13 were 20 per cent shareholders in the company, isn't that right? 14 A. Sorry. Barkhill had the obligation -- 15 Q.187Yes. 16 A. -- to Connell Wilson. 17 Q.188Yes. 18 A. It was up to them to settle the fee. So if Barkhill had sought money from the 19 bank to settle it. It's unlikely we would have given it if it wasn't included 20 in our May '93 sanction. 21 Q.189Yes. 22 A. As regards our shareholding, our 20 per cent, I think I have already explained 23 yesterday, the nature of that shareholding. 24 Q.190And in fact if we look at a minute of at meeting in the bank on the 16th of 25 November '93 at 10398. I think it would appear that a meeting was called for 26 the purpose of discussing the UK judgement proceedings taken against Connell 27 Wilson, isn't that correct? 28 A. That's correct. 29 Q.191It records that "A copy affidavit from Connell Wilson had recently been 30 received setting out in very clear terms the basis on which their claim of 32 1 150,000 was based. In view of this, there seems little doubt but that this 2 judgement would be awarded against this company on the 1st of December next and 3 in the circumstances we suggest an approach to Connell Wilson should now be 4 made on behalf of Barkhill to investigate whether there would they would be 5 amenable to a settlement. However it is felt that an offer of an immediate 6 payment is likely to be necessary in order to have an out of court settlement 7 before the hearing date". 8 9 And I think it was agreed that you would try to make contact with Mr. Gilmartin 10 to see if he could progress matters with Connell Wilson, isn't that right? 11 A. That's what it states there, yes. 12 Q.192And I think in time, and I don't want to dwell or delay on this. Mr. Gilmartin 13 himself was to swear an affidavit in support of Connell Wilson's claim, isn't 14 that correct? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q.193I think a compromise did arise between Barkhill Limited and Connell Wilson as a 17 result of which Connell Wilson agreed to defer payments over a period, isn't 18 that correct? 19 A. I recall that. Over a year maybe. 20 Q.19425,000 pounds each, some of which were paid by Barkhill through or by Allied 21 Irish Banks by way of loan to Barkhill, isn't that right? 22 A. I'm sure that's correct, yeah. 23 Q.195And I think in fact, Mr. Forman, Mr. Richard Forman of Connell Wilson came to 24 act and be retained on behalf of Barkhill with the agreement of the bank in 25 pursuing a suitable developer partners for this site? 26 A. That's correct in early '94 sometime, yeah. 27 Q.196Mr. Gilmartin has claimed in evidence that the bank had begged him to intercede 28 and seek a development partner and that it was through his efforts that in fact 29 a development partner was ultimately found for Barkhill? 30 A. I don't know whether that's correct or not but what I can confirm and sorry. 33 1 And what I do know to be incorrect also, is the point that you made there that 2 we interceded on Mr. Gilmartin to find a developer. That's not correct. It 3 was a matter for Mr. O'Callaghan to go seek a development partner. And I know 4 that in that process at this stage in early '94, I think relationships between 5 Mr. O'Callaghan and Mr. Gilmartin were on some of somewhat of an even keel. 6 And as a result of that and Mr. Gilmartin's good relationship with Mr. Forman 7 from Connell Wilson, they subsequently got together as a group with Connell 8 Wilson and Connell Wilson were engaged. And yes, they were the ones who 9 identified Hammersons as far as I'm aware. So Mr. Gilmartin is right in that 10 respect, but the development partners who ultimately became involved as you 11 know are Grovenor and I don't know whether or not they were sourced by Connell 12 Wilson. 13 Q.197Well for example if we could have 11009. There was a board meeting within 14 Allied Irish Bank on the 19th of May '94, attended by Mr. Deane, Mr. 15 O'Callaghan, Mr. Maguire, Mr. Pitcher, you, and Mary Basquille. And also 16 attended for part of the meeting was Mr. Richard Forman of Connell Wilson and 17 Dave McGrath of the bank, isn't that right? 18 A. For part of the meeting, yes. 19 Q.198And Mr. Forman I think presented his credential as and those of Connell Wilson 20 to that meeting. 21 A. That's correct. 22 Q.199Would it be fair to say that arising out of that, he was retained for some time 23 as you say -- 24 A. That's correct. 25 Q.200-- to act on behalf of Barkhill -- 26 A. That's correct. 27 Q.201-- with a view to obtaining a development partner? 28 A. Yes. 29 Q.202Now, if I ... if I could just go back for a moment to July 1993. I think it's 30 fair to say that in July '93, there were a series of articles in the media 34 1 concerning allegations of bribery and corruption in the planning process, isn't 2 that correct? 3 A. Yes, I understand that's, yeah. 4 Q.203For example, I think if we could look at 22648. There is an article in the 5 Irish Times of the 12th of July, headed "where it is possible to boost the 6 value of parcels of land beyond the dreams of avarice on a roll call vote" 7 isn't that one of the articles? 8 A. I see that. Yes. 9 Q.204If we look for example at 66249, a further article entitled "Minister, tell me 10 this, is money changing hands? Councillor well minister I couldn't deny it". 11 12 And then a by line saying "The number of Dublin County Councillors who accept 13 money from property developers whose land rezoning proposals they support 14 appear to be small but cast a cloud over the entire planning process in the 15 country". 16 17 And again, I think that on the 13th of July, the Irish Times carried an article 18 headed at 66250 "Gardai to investigate rezoning claims". You recall those 19 series of articles, isn't that correct? 20 A. I've seen them on our file. 21 Q.205Yes. And in fact, if we could look at 9920 on the 26th of July '93, you made a 22 note in the file arising out of those articles, isn't that correct? 23 A. That's correct. 24 Q.206And that note records the following "some issues arising from the recent 25 articles in the Irish Times on planning. What are the expected objections to 26 the Barkhill zoning arising from the public display of the draft development 27 plan. Minister Michael Smith is encouraging the County Council to review their 28 rezoning decisions in the light of the number of same. He has been critical of 29 the County Council in this regard. What is O'Callaghan's relationship with 30 Michael Smith. Does O'Callaghan have any indication of Smith's view of the 35 1 proposed Barkhill rezoning." 2 3 You record the article of the 13th of July '93 which I referred to. And you 4 record it as indicating "it is believed that the Minister for the Environment 5 Mr. Smith is prepared to direct the County Council to change at least part of 6 the Draft Plan because of the scale of the rezoning involved. The minister's 7 power under Section 22 of the 1963 Planning Act has never been exercised 8 before. Is there a possibility if the County Council refuse to amend their 9 decisions themselves could such a process cause delay" and then in relation to 10 the article of the 12th of July '93 you record what that article says 11 concerning a reversal and interference at that time by the Taoiseach who 12 whipped the Fine Gael councillors into line per the article, isn't that right? 13 A. That's correct. 14 Q.207And then you went on to quote the article of the Irish Times of the 13th of 15 July '93 as follows "Mr. Smith said yesterday that he was asking the Garda 16 Commissioner, Mr. Patrick Corrigan to investigate urgently the reports of money 17 changing hands with a view to the Director of Public Prosecutions deciding 18 whether criminal prosecutions should be instituted. We view the matter with 19 the utmost gravity he said and he went on to say "It is vitally important for 20 our democratic system that the planning system operates and is seen to operate 21 in an open and accountable fashion and that the highest standards of personal 22 integrity observed by all of those involved. Land owners, developers, public 23 representatives and officials. 24 25 Recalling that he had unequivocally set out his position in the planning 26 advices -- planning activities of Dublin County Council over the past few 27 months, the Minister indicated clearly that he wanted some recent rezoning 28 decisions reversed. I would again appeal to Dublin County Council to act 29 responsibly in the wider public interest when the plan comes before them in 30 September he declared." 36 1 2 And then you raise the query "Does any of the foregoing have implications for 3 Barkhill?" And you go on to deal with the plans to be submitted to the county 4 manager and you say "In view of Corcoran's recent resignation from Green are 5 there any implications for Barkhill?" Now, can I just ask you, would it be 6 fair to say that that memo seems to suggest that you had concerns in July 1993 7 as a result of the series of articles concerning the rezoning of Quarryvale 8 which had taken place I think in December '92? 9 A. No, I think what that note records is it's a note of, which I do from time to 10 time in cases, is it's a note of my thoughts in terms of asking questions. 11 Well, you know, in the light of the series of articles. I think there were 12 articles over a number of days, maybe over a number of weeks I can't recall of 13 various questions. And it put the questions to me to say does any of this have 14 complications for Barkhill as exactly as the question is there. 15 Q.208Well you are hardly writing note for yourself I suggest to you. You are 16 writing the note, presumably for an upcoming meeting with Mr. O'Callaghan and 17 others, either with you or with others within the bank? 18 A. Not necessarily. That could have been written as an aide memoire on the file. 19 It wouldn't necessarily have been written as an agenda item for a meeting. 20 Q.209Why did you, for example want to know what Mr. O'Callaghan's relationship with 21 Minister Smith was? 22 A. Because I think if you go back up the page there. I think Mr. Smith was, he 23 had talked I think there somewhere, that he had talked about. As prepared to 24 director to (inaudible) ... 25 Q.210Why would Mr. O'Callaghan's relationship with Mr. Smith be relevant in relation 26 to what Mr. Smith had to said about rezoning? 27 A. I'm not sure at this remove. 28 Q.211Sorry. 29 A. I'm not sure at this remove. 30 Q.212You, I think you quoted that portion of that the article which referred to the 37 1 Garda investigation in relation to the reports of money changing hands, isn't 2 that correct, and you wrote it or recorded it in the context of asking the 3 question if it had any implications for Barkhill, isn't that correct? 4 A. Correct, that's what it says. 5 Q.213Yes. 6 A. Overall, the overall statement says "any of the foregoing have implications for 7 Barkhill". 8 Q.214Now, just in relation to Barkhill, I think yesterday we saw in relation to the 9 Quarryvale rezoning, the payments most of which had been made by Allied Irish 10 Bank or approved by Allied Irish Bank to Mr. Dunlop and to Shefran, isn't that 11 right? 12 A. That's correct. 13 Q.215And for example we know that Riga on foot of the subordinated loan account from 14 monies advanced to it by Allied Irish Bank had made two payments in 1992 to Mr. 15 Dunlop, one for 8,228 pounds and the other for 8,484 pounds making a total of 16 16,712 pounds, isn't that right? And I think bring that back up if you ...? 17 A. I'm sure. 18 Q.216And then I think in March and April '92, Barkhill Limited had advanced 14,019 19 pounds and further 954 pounds to Frank Dunlop & Associates. And then we saw 20 the payments after you came on board in September '92, there were three 21 payments in October '92. Totalling 30,097 pounds. A payment to Frank Dunlop's 22 in November '92 of 11,490 pounds. And then there were two payments in December 23 '92 totalling 30,823 pounds. And I make that a total payments to Frank Dunlop 24 & Associates of which you or Allied Irish Bank would have been aware of for the 25 period '91 up to December '92 of 103,998 pounds. 26 A. Okay I'll take that as being your sum, yeah. 27 Q.217Okay. And then we know that there were the three Shefran payments in '91 which 28 totalled 80,000 pounds. And then there were the two round additional two round 29 sum Shefran payments in April and June '92, totalling 70,000 pounds, isn't that 30 correct? And then we know from the documentation that you were aware that a 38 1 further 63,000 pounds had been paid to Mr. Dunlop in early '93 in relation to 2 the rezoning of Barkhill, isn't that correct? 3 A. This is the discussions yesterday? 4 Q.218Yes. You might recall earlier I noted Mr. O'Callaghan enquiring of you? 5 A. Oh, yes. 6 Q.219Yes. That you wouldn't pay it but you knew it had been paid to Mr. Dunlop. 7 A. Yes. 8 Q.220So I make that in total a sum of 316,988 pounds paid to Mr. Dunlop in that 9 period, either to him directly or through Shefran. And then we know for 10 example that Mr. O'Callaghan had advised you in November '92, that he had 11 injected a sum of 85,000 "into the situation" as he described it, isn't that 12 right and we saw that yesterday? 13 A. We saw that yesterday, yes. 14 Q.221And you -- you would also have been advised by Mr. O'Callaghan that Riga had 15 paid 400,000 pounds to assist in the rezoning of Barkhill, isn't that correct? 16 We saw that in February '93? 17 A. That's -- 18 Q.222Of 150,000 of which related to fees or expenses of which no invoices had been 19 shown to you, isn't that correct? 20 A. Uh-huh. 21 Q.223So you knew, I suggest to you, that when you read those series of articles and 22 when you compiled this memorandum that substantial monies had been paid to Mr. 23 Dunlop either directly to Frank Dunlop & Associates or to Shefran Limited by 24 either Mr. O'Callaghan or Riga or Barkhill but sourced from Allied Irish Bank 25 by way of loans to either of the two companies? 26 A. Well some had. I suggest to you the information was there but it's very easy 27 in hindsight to join all of those sums together and add them you up. I would 28 say we didn't do that at that point in time and we had no reason to do it. 29 Q.224Did you ever raise those issues that you appear to have raised in that memo 30 with Mr. O'Callaghan. Did you everybody for example ask Mr. O'Callaghan what 39 1 his relationship with Minister Smith was? 2 A. I cannot recall. Obviously I've seen that note and I have been trying to 3 recall would I have raised it with him and I may not have because on the other 4 hand I may have raised it with him. But all I can say and indeed any of the 5 foregoing implications for Barkhill. But as I said yesterday, if I raised it 6 and there was any comment or any suggestion that money would have passed hands 7 illegally or illicitly or bribes as you called it earlier on. That would have 8 stuck in my mind and that's something that would have obviously caused me 9 concern. That never arose. 10 Q.225Those series of articles caused you concern, isn't that right? 11 A. Those series of articles led to a series of questions in my head. To say well 12 are there implications for Barkhill? Could the Barkhill, could the whole 13 planning development plan be thrown out, could it be overturned, could there be 14 delays? They were the questions in my head. 15 Q.226There was a meeting I think with Mr. O'Callaghan, if we could have 9934 please. 16 I'm not sure whose handwriting this is, Mr. O'Farrell. I think it might be 17 Ms. Basquille's. You may be able to assist me you are probably more familiar 18 with her handwriting than I am. But it would you appear to suggest that there 19 may have been some sort of a meeting between Mr. O'Callaghan, Mr. Chambers and 20 I suggest perhaps Mr. McGrath. Do you see the right-hand side heading "points 21 raised by Owen O'Callaghan in meeting with D Chambers"? 22 A. Can I just ask is the note from our file? 23 Q.227It's from Allied Irish Bank's file. 24 A. Okay points raised, yes. 25 Q.228And you see -- 26 A. Oh, yes. 27 Q.229-- on the top left hand corner 28th of July '93? 28 A. Yes I do. 29 Q.230Now, your note is dated 26th of July '93 the one we were looking at? 30 A. Okay. 40 1 Q.231So a meeting between Mr. O'Callaghan and Mr. Chambers and Mr. McGrath would 2 have been at the meeting at a much higher level. Not much higher but at a more 3 senior meeting than a meeting with you, isn't that right? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q.232Is there any possibility that your note was written as an aid memoire for an 6 upcoming meeting between Mr. Chambers, Mr. McGrath and Mr. O'Callaghan? 7 A. Highly unlikely. 8 Q.233Do you know whose writing? 9 A. I think that's Mary Basquille's writing. Sorry -- it's different writing on 10 the top than on the bottom, isn't there? 11 Q.234Now, in fairness to Mr. O'Callaghan and indeed Mr. Chambers and Mr. McGrath, I 12 should say that the note records the following. As having been points raised 13 "planning application okay. Full planning expected early January (not allowed 14 for An Bord Pleanala) M&S lined up. Hugh Keane wants Pennies also presumably 15 that's Quinnsworth and Roches keeping options open". 16 A. Yes. 17 Q.235So the points which appear to be raised are points which relate to the 18 development of the site as such. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q.236Or points that could have been raised with you. Is there any reason why you 21 wouldn't have met with Mr. O'Callaghan in July '93? 22 A. I'd say I was on holidays, actually. I don't know. But I could have been on 23 holidays. I generally take my holidays around then. 24 Q.237I am having it checked, Mr. O'Farrell. But it would appear that there may not 25 have been another note at that meeting? 26 A. I don't think there was, no. That wouldn't be unusual, I would suggest what 27 happened here, Mr. McGrath and Mr. Chambers can comment on this. I would 28 suggest it was a meeting at high level and Mr. O'Callaghan in terms of getting 29 a very high level update on what was happening and that's. No note is done of 30 the meeting and Mr. McGrath probably advised Mary what happened at the meeting 41 1 and she just jotted down notes as to what was said. 2 Q.238Your note is dated 26th of July '93. So if you went on holidays you went 3 somewhere between the 26th and 28th of July, isn't that right? 4 A. That's a fair point, yeah. Probably unlikely then. 5 Q.239So it's unlikely you were on holidays. 6 A. Yeah. 7 Q.240You weren't at the meeting or can you advise the Tribunal if you were at the 8 meeting? 9 A. I have no no recollection of it. But I would be surprised -- well I would be 10 surprised if I was and I wasn't mentioned there. 11 Q.241I presume you would also be surprised if you were at the meeting and you hadn't 12 a comprehensive note made of what was discussed at that meeting? 13 A. I'm sure I would have done a note. 14 Q.242In Ms. Basquille as noted I think telephone attendances on Mr. Gilmartin, isn't 15 that right? 16 A. Sorry say that again. 17 Q.243From time to time we have seen and I have put on screen -- 18 A. Sorry. 19 Q.244-- from Ms. Basquille, memos of telephone attendances on Mr. Gilmartin. 20 A. Yes telephone attendances. Telephone conversations with Mr. Gilmartin? 21 Q.245Yes. 22 A. Yes. 23 Q.246And we saw yesterday where you had a comprehensive note made following a 24 luncheon meeting with Mr. O'Callaghan, Mr. Deane and Mr. Kay, isn't that right? 25 A. Yes. 26 Q.247And yet this very high level meeting with Mr. O'Callaghan, Mr. Chambers and 27 Mr. McGrath following on your note of the 26th of July, doesn't appear to have 28 any corresponding memo of what was discussed? 29 A. That seems to be the case. And that would not be unusual. A meeting between 30 people at the level of Donal Chambers and Dave Mcgrath, a meeting at a high 42 1 level in terms of where the project was it at. Maybe it was lunch, I don't 2 know. That would not be unusual. 3 4 JUDGE FAHERTY: Mr. O'Farrell, can I ask you. When you would have compiled 5 the note on the 26th of July? 6 A. Yes. 7 8 JUDGE FAHERTY: I think you said earlier obviously you had a file on Barkhill 9 or -- 10 A. Yes. 11 12 JUDGE FAHERTY: And that was accessible by yourself and Ms. Basquille. 13 A. Yes. 14 15 JUDGE FAHERTY: So in the event that a meeting was held with Mr. O'Callaghan 16 and Mr. Chambers and indeed Mr. McGrath, if that is the case. Presumably, that 17 file, would it have been available to them? 18 A. It would have been available but I can pretty categorically. I'm pretty 19 certain it wouldn't have been reviewed by them. That would not be the nature 20 of the way that they'd engage on a case. You know they would not get into the 21 detail of going through a file. They would expect to be briefed, if they 22 required to be briefed. 23 24 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes then who would they have been briefed by? 25 A. Well they were perhaps briefed by me or Mary Basquille or maybe they weren't 26 briefed by anybody. Maybe they had arranged to meet Owen O'Callaghan and get 27 an update on the project. I don't know at this remove, judge. 28 29 JUDGE FAHERTY: Well obviously we might have to wait for those gentlemen who 30 were at the meeting in fairness to them to give their evidence, and none of 43 1 them have to date. But do you have any recollection of briefing Mr. McGrath 2 Mr. Chambers? 3 A. No. 4 5 JUDGE FAHERTY: Perhaps Ms. Basquille might have, if you didn't do it. 6 A. You can ask her but it's 16 years ago. 7 8 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes. But obviously it is a high level meeting and I am sure 9 Mr. McGrath and Mr. Chambers were busy people. 10 A. Yes. 11 12 JUDGE FAHERTY: High level jobs. 13 A. Yes. 14 15 JUDGE FAHERTY: And I get the impression that they were at a higher level in 16 the bank than yourself. 17 A. They were absolutely, yes. 18 19 JUDGE FAHERTY: And obviously their time, no more than anybody else's was 20 precious. So if they were meeting with Mr. O'Callaghan they would want to be 21 informed I take it? 22 A. I'd suspect that they would want to be informed at a high level of what was 23 happening. Mr. Chambers, he was one of a huge portfolio of cases. His 24 involvement would have been very high level. I'd say it was very much a case 25 of where is it at, where is it going, get an update on it and Mr. McGrath 26 indeed would operate at that level as well and that was his style. 27 28 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes. 29 30 JUDGE KEYS: Mr. Fitzgerald, I wonder could I ask you. Was there much concern 44 1 expressed by your superiors? 2 A. Sorry, just for me -- sorry. 3 4 JUDGE KEYS: Yes. 5 A. Yes. 6 7 JUDGE KEYS: Was there much concern expressed by your superiors relating to 8 the risks factor in recovering all of these monies around this period of time? 9 A. I can only go on the file, Judge, in terms of the different mark ups that were 10 presented. I think probably the most pertinent one at this point in time was 11 the one in May '93. And I think I had taken over the case or eight months 12 previously. There had been a lot of discussion and I would have gone to 13 considerable lengths as the mark up would reflect in bringing the whole thing, 14 putting the whole thing on the table. 15 16 And I think that process involved three separate applications, which would have 17 been three related and separate applications, one for Riga, one for Barkhill 18 and a related company in Arthur's Quay or something bringing it forward. At 19 that debate I have no doubt, I don't recall it specifically, but I have no 20 doubt that the case received full and considered discussion in relation to 21 where we were. As I said it was a very water shed decision in terms of moving 22 forward but really once a decision was made -- this wouldn't be unusual in this 23 to this case. When the decision is made it's made and it's handed back to the 24 people running the account. It would be handed back to me to get on it with 25 it. 26 27 JUDGE KEYS: I appreciate that but I was just wondering because of the 28 circumstances, it started off as a short term loan for six months at four 29 million or whatever it was. It now had jumped up to 8 and then to 12 and on 30 and up and up and up. 45 1 A. Yes. 2 3 JUDGE KEYS: Surely, that would have there would be a report back to your 4 superiors relating to loans of that nature which should have been dusted, 5 completed and a profit made within a year or six months. 6 A. Yes. 7 8 JUDGE KEYS: Has now been extended to years with the risk factor that the 9 value of the lands might be less than the monies which were borrowed. And 10 consequently it would be on the minds of your superiors that there would be 11 close attention paid to this as time progressed and as the debt remained 12 outstanding. 13 A. Well I'd suggest to you, Judge, that. 14 15 JUDGE KEYS: Would that not be the case. 16 A. Well let me just give you the circumstance. I mean, what would have happened 17 here is that that discussion and those concerns would have been discussed at 18 that presentation in May '93 when we agreed to go with the additional money. 19 20 JUDGE KEYS: Yes 21 A. And I have no recollection as I say. But I have absolutely no doubt but it was 22 a very full and thorough. 23 24 JUDGE KEYS: So they were well briefed 25 A. Absolutely at that point in time. But really once. As I said, this is no 26 different than any other case and no different than today. Once the decision 27 is made and we are going to go with the money, then it's handed back to the guy 28 running the account, and that was me. Now, I think my superiors would have, I 29 suggest, and they can speak for themselves. They would have regarded -- well 30 the first point I make is this in the overall context of what they were 46 1 managing, my superiors and indeed the bank's figures, this was miniscule, it 2 was only a fraction. Even in my own portfolio it was one of maybe 150 cases so 3 it's important to keep that in mind. 4 5 JUDGE KEYS: The amount of money involved you regard as considerably small 6 A. It was relatively small. Not to underplay the fact that was a non-performing 7 loan. 8 9 JUDGE KEYS: What about the risk factor? Would that have been regarded as a 10 serious risk factor or one that's run of the mill. 11 A. No. The fact that it was a non-performing loan would have placed it in a 12 higher risk category. Without a doubt there was provision on this case. But 13 there was nobody -- I suppose the point I'm trying to make, I didn't have to go 14 to someone and report on this case every week. 15 16 JUDGE KEYS: No no I'm not suggesting that. It's just that it may be one of 17 the cases where you would find your superiors more briefed about it and 18 concerned about it than other cases because as I say A, it started off as a six 19 month loan and now it was really out of control in one sense you could say. 20 A. And I think the fact that it would have been unusual for Mr. McGrath to get 21 involved in cases directly with customers that I was dealing with. 22 23 JUDGE KEYS: That's what I'm saying 24 A. Relatively unusual. 25 26 JUDGE KEYS: That's what I'm saying. Was it of that nature or the concern was 27 of that type of concern that involved actually your superiors getting involved 28 personally with Mr. O'Callaghan, for example 29 A. Well I'd certainly. 30 47 1 JUDGE KEYS: Be unusual 2 A. Well Mr. McGrath would have -- I'd a number of difficult cases in that 3 portfolio and I recollect that Mr. McGrath and I would have engaged with a 4 small number of customers. 5 6 JUDGE KEYS: I see 7 A. But his involvement would be very much at a non-detailed level. Very much kind 8 of coming in when there was a strategic issue or an important issue. And in 9 terms of Mr. Chambers' involvement. His involvement would be very much at a 10 high level, probably of a social nature. And that, I suggest that meeting 11 there could well have been a lunch, could well have been a lunch and that 12 probably is why no file note was done as well. 13 14 JUDGE KEYS: Thank you. 15 16 17 Q.248MR. QUINN: Would it be fair to say Mr. O'Farrell that in advance of any such 18 meeting between Mr. McGrath Mr. Chambers between Mr. O'Callaghan. That both 19 Mr. McGrath and Mr. Chambers would have discussed the up-to-date position 20 concerning that file with you? 21 A. Probably. I have no recollection of it but probably. They would not be 22 unusual, it would not be unknown that they wouldn't. But I don't recollect and 23 I'm not trying to be evasive on that, I just don't know. 24 Q.249Now, you recall earlier when we were dealing with the drawdown of the fresh 25 funds sanctioned in June 1993 and in the context of the Connell Wilson payment? 26 A. Yes. 27 Q.250And you advised that Connell Wilson hadn't been included? 28 A. Yeah. 29 Q.251In the application for the funds and neither had Mr. Dunlop for the 63,000 30 pounds sought or paid by Riga isn't that correct? 48 1 A. Yes. 2 Q.252But in fact would be fair to say, I think, that Mr. Dunlop although not 3 mentioned in the application or indeed not, although not mentioned as part of 4 the sanction did receive some of those funds. Because if we look at 10088--88 5 we see a Riga Limited invoice to AIB Corporate Banking dated the 2nd of 6 September 1993 signed by Owen O'Callaghan and Barry Pitcher for and on behalf 7 of Barkhill Limited seeking a reimbursement to Mr. Dunlop in the sum of 8 9,310.42 for what are described as media/communications re planning isn't that 9 right? 10 A. That's correct. 11 Q.253That was sanctioned by Mr. Pitcher and Mr. O'Callaghan isn't that correct at 12 this time? 13 A. I think "sanctioned" is perhaps a word you used but there would have been, they 14 would have been approved in accordance with mandate. Can I just make two 15 observations. One, is that I think there was a sum in the application of May 16 '93 which allowed for some, what's the word, a kind of a general amount in 17 terms of fees. That's the first point. And my second point would be that if 18 you are going to go on and ask me in relation to why wouldn't this have to come 19 to 9300. 9300 in the context of this case, or indeed any case at the time, was 20 a very small amount and certainly would not have been on notice of any issues 21 of Mr. Dunlop. So nothing would have jumped out at that to cause any concerns. 22 Q.254And I think from time to time Mr. O'Farrell you have referred to the 23 Shareholders Agreement which was executed in September 1991 as being sacrosanct 24 and set out the parameter of the relationship or the relationship that existed 25 between Mr. O'Callaghan Mr. Gilmartin and the bank isn't that right? 26 A. That was the legal agreement. 27 Q.255It was written in stone. On foot of that agreement the bank had a 20 per cent 28 interest in Barkhill isn't that correct? 29 A. On the basis I have outlined yes. A limited. 30 Q.256Yet I think if we look at 10604 on the 24th of December 1993. You wrote to the 49 1 office of the Secretary of Bank Centre advising that the bank own less than 20 2 per cent of the shares in Barkhill isn't that right? 3 A. That's correct. 4 Q.257And I think that you did that following on a difficulty which appears to have 5 arisen or have been brought to the attention of Ms. Basquille in December '93, 6 if I could have 10574. I think there is a note there where it would appear 7 that the bank in its annual returns had not returned a shareholding in Barkhill 8 as it was required to do, isn't that right? 9 A. Overlooked in error as it states there, yes. 10 Q.258In fact if we go back to 10372, and Mr. Covney, Corporate Banking had written a 11 memo dated the 9th of November 1993, advising that "he had been informed in 12 recent times that Mr. Pitcher had become a director of Barkhill over two years 13 ago and upon investigating his appointment had discovered that Barkhill may 14 have a 20 per cent interest in Barkhill since 1991. If this is correct 15 Barkhill should have been listed upon several reports, including the bank's 16 annual report to the Companies Office for '92/'93 and various reports for the 17 insurance department." 18 19 You were asked or person to whom this was directed namely Mr. McGrath was 20 "asked to advise regarding the bank's shareholding in Barkhill". It says "I 21 would be obliged to the shareholders with equal or exceeding 20 per cent of the 22 company's shares as subsidiaries or associated companies of the bank in the 23 Companies Office and in various other reports" and I think advice was sought in 24 relation to the difficulty from your solicitors Fry's, isn't that correct? 25 A. Correct. 26 Q.259And I think, initially Mr. Gilmartin was written to concerning the matter but 27 ultimately I think a decision was made that you would transfer or the bank 28 would transfer a shareholding of -- to both Mr. Gilmartin and his wife and to 29 Riga, isn't that correct? 30 A. That's correct. 50 1 Q.260And I think a declaration of trust signed by you and at 16463 was entered into 2 on the 23rd of December '93, both in relation to the transfer to Riga and the 3 transfer to Mr. Gilmartin, isn't that correct? 4 A. That's correct. 5 Q.261And I think that, that device had the effect of showing AIB as having a less 6 than 20 per cent interest in the company? 7 A. That's correct. 8 Q.262And Mr. Gilmartin has given evidence that that transfer or declaration was done 9 without reference to him. 10 A. Correct. 11 Q.263Would you have regularly entered into arrangements whereby you would have 12 sought to keep the shareholding of Allied Irish Bank's companies off the 13 register? 14 A. Well let me just explain the context of this, which is important. The firstly, 15 when we took our stake in Barkhill back in '91, I think the nature of our stake 16 was very much a financial, financial stake or a stake with a financial upside 17 of 2 million. So it was a limited financial stake in that sense. 18 19 Clearly, it was overlooked in terms of reporting. It as part of our returns 20 for the two years the end of '91 and the end of '92. When this came to our 21 attention at the end of '93, a concern I had as I've eluded to you yesterday, 22 was that if we appeared as 20 per cent shareholders in Barkhill Limited, it 23 would have been apparent to other customers that we had a stake in Barkhill and 24 as I stated yesterday, we were, we had been requested on a number of occasions 25 to become equity stakeholders in different projects, which were which we were 26 reluctant to do. And we were reluctant that this wouldn't be highlighted and 27 become a challenge for us in terms of refusing other customers. 28 29 So consequently, I went to Fry's and we got the advice of Fry's that the 30 mechanism that was used here whereby, essentially the share each was held in 51 1 trust by the bank I think for the other two shareholders was an absolutely 2 legitimate way of going about it. We got the full advice of Frys to do it this 3 way. And that's what I was relying on in going forward. 4 5 In answer to your specific question around is this a regular occurrence. This 6 is the only company that I have been involved in where the bank has chose to, 7 as far as I'm aware. 8 Q.264There was considerable controversy surrounding the rezoning of Quarryvale both 9 May '91 and again in December '92, isn't that right? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q.265A lot of that controversy I think had been driven by the rival company Green 12 Property -- 13 A. Yes. 14 Q.266-- in relation to Blanchardstown. 15 A. Some of it. Yes. 16 Q.267I think in the Local Elections in June '91, a number of councillors had 17 actually lost their seat including Mr. Lawlor a sitting TD, as a result of 18 their approach to the Quarryvale rezoning? 19 A. Okay. 20 Q.268There was a lot of descension amongst politicians in relation to it and it was 21 a matter of huge importance around the city, isn't that correct? 22 A. That's right. 23 Q.269Had AIB's interest had been registered, then the public would have known and 24 politicians would have known that they had voted on a project in respect of 25 which Allied Irish Bank held 20 per cent interest, isn't that right? 26 A. Presumably the information would have been available to them, yes. 27 Q.270Presumably there are very good reasons why the Oireachtas has decided that 20 28 per cent interest in a company should be disclosed on the register of a public 29 company, isn't that right? 30 A. Presumably they have. 52 1 Q.271And I presume that the shareholders of Allied Irish Bank would have been 2 anxious to know that their company held 20 per cent interest in the Quarryvale 3 project? 4 A. Well maybe they would. I can just say to you that in terms of the -- what 5 happened here was we took legal advice and it was done with that full legal 6 advice as being a legitimate exercise. So if there's any implication that it 7 was under hand well then that's a matter for Fry's. 8 Q.272Now, if I could come forward then perhaps March of 1994. If I could have 9 10805 -- 10 11 JUDGE FAHERTY: Mr. Quinn, sorry to interrupt you. Something that I was just 12 going to ask Mr. O'Farrell, and it's apropos the memo of the 26th of July. 13 It's 9920, Mr. Quinn. I know we've moved on from it a little bit. 14 A. That's okay. 15 16 JUDGE FAHERTY: I just wanted to ask you, just one thing Mr. O'Farrell. That 17 memo it would appear from the memo in which its laid out. It was regarding 18 Barkhill and it's headed "some issues arising from the recent articles in the 19 Irish times on planning" and there is a number then of subparagraphs under that 20 general heading. 21 A. Yes. 22 23 JUDGE FAHERTY: And the very last one that's set out, seems to be a question, 24 how do we deal with the Tom Gilmartin factor? 25 A. Yes, yes. 26 27 JUDGE FAHERTY: And I just want to ask you Mr. O'Farrell in relation to that. 28 Why were you putting that down the context of this particular memo? 29 A. I would suggest, Judge, that the last three points probably don't necessarily 30 fall within the recent articles Irish Times on planning. I think the last, my 53 1 question there might conclude in relation to the articles on planning. The 2 last three points could probably be viewed separately perhaps. 3 4 JUDGE FAHERTY: Well -- 5 A. That's the only explanation I can give. 6 7 JUDGE FAHERTY: Well, Mr. Quinn put it to you earlier that at meetings, Mr. 8 Gilmartin or he asked you indeed if you recalled because Mr. Gilmartin has 9 given evidence that there were certain matters that he had concerns about. 10 A. Uh-huh. 11 12 JUDGE FAHERTY: And really what I'm asking you is when you put that down, why 13 was the Tom Gilmartin factor, why did you set that down at that particular 14 juncture in this context? 15 A. Well I don't specifically remember why. 16 17 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes. 18 A. But I suggest it's a broader question. 19 20 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes. Well obviously the planning and all of that, planning 21 application had been submitted at this stage, isn't that correct, by Barkhill? 22 A. I'm not actually clear. 23 24 JUDGE FAHERTY: Well -- it was in the -- yes 25 A. I'm not sure whether it was submitted or not at that point. 26 27 JUDGE FAHERTY: And Mr. O'Callaghan had engaged Ambrose Kelly & Co. to do that 28 as project manager. 29 A. Yes. Sorry. It states sorry, Judge, it states plans are due to be submitted 30 on the 30th of July. 54 1 2 JUDGE FAHERTY: Exactly. They were in the process of being drawn up. 3 A. Yes. 4 5 JUDGE FAHERTY: But there was the whole issue of whether or not it could be 6 done whether the plan was made and I understand all of that. 7 A. Right. 8 9 JUDGE FAHERTY: But it still begs the question as to why you would be mousing, 10 if I can use that word. 11 A. Yes. 12 13 JUDGE FAHERTY: Over what you described as the "Tom Gilmartin factor" in the 14 context of this memo. 15 A. Well I can't explain it precisely as I can't recall the context of the note, 16 well obviously the context of the note os clear. But all I can do is suggest 17 to you -- that well my interpretation of it now at 15 years later, would be 18 that it's a broader question. 19 20 JUDGE FAHERTY: But in the context -- 21 A. How do we ensure Tom Gilmartin keeps working with us. I cannot at this remove 22 say that it relates to the previous part of my note. But I don't know. 23 24 JUDGE FAHERTY: The matter is heading issues arising from the Irish Times 25 article on planning. 26 A. Yes. I see that. 27 28 JUDGE FAHERTY: I am just asking you, did you have concerns that Mr. Gilmartin 29 might or respond if you like, to possible articles that were appearing in the 30 paper in some way? 55 1 A. I have no recollection of that. I would suggest that the second last point 2 perhaps doesn't necessarily relate to the Irish Times articles either. 3 4 JUDGE FAHERTY: Well obviously I see that. My issue was why are you raising 5 its this issue about Tom Gilmartin at this juncture in this memo? I mean, as I 6 understand your evidence, Mr. O'Farrell, on occasions in various memos we have 7 seen noting with concern that Mr. Gilmartin didn't turn up as planned for a 8 meeting. 9 A. Correct, yes. That's correct. 10 11 JUDGE FAHERTY: And I appreciate all of that. But it's really in this 12 context. Why you would just put it in that manner. What was the "Gilmartin 13 factor" that you had in mind in July 1993? 14 A. Well -- 15 16 JUDGE FAHERTY: If you can recollect. 17 A. Well I don't recollect precisely. But if I can just suggest that it might be 18 the case that the last three points are more general mousings while the 19 previous three, the previous six points relate to the heading. The last three 20 points are made in a broader context and I believe that's probably the context 21 in which the Gilmartin comment was made. How do we make sure that Mr. 22 Gilmartin continues to work with us. But I really have no recollection of 23 precisely ... 24 25 JUDGE FAHERTY: Very well. 26 27 Q.273MR. QUINN: For example I think that in 1995, Mr. Gilmartin was to raise with 28 the bank certain issues concerning an approach to him by a UTV company seeking 29 information in relation to Quarryvale, isn't that right? We if we look at 30 11917 this is a memo prepared by Ms. Basquille which appears to relate to a 56 1 conversation with Mr. Gilmartin on the 16th of August '95. You will have seen 2 this. He says a phone. 3 4 She says sorry "phone call from Tom Gilmartin 16th of August '95, to advise 5 that he had received an approach from a UK TV company seeking information in 6 relation to Quarryvale/Owen O'Callaghan which obviously stemmed from recent 7 publicity concerning the planning process and surveillance allegations. 8 9 He indicated that he had been offered 100,000 pounds by the company which were 10 involved in the TV programme which sparked the Beef Tribunal and that he had 11 also received a similar offer of 50,000 pounds from a Northern Ireland company. 12 13 I responded that the bank would be alarmed at any 14 director/shareholder/interested party in Barkhill would take any action which 15 may jeopardise the successful outcome of the company's current development 16 plans and negotiations with anchor tenants. However, he subsequently reverted 17 to the old story of being cheated out of his company and indicated that his 18 belief that he will never see any return out of the Quarryvale development. He 19 became irrational and resisted any attempt to recognise reality of Barkhill's 20 position of the likely receivership prior to his entering into the Shareholders 21 Agreement." 22 23 Would that memo have been brought to your attention or that telephone 24 conversation? 25 A. It probably was yes, I don't recall it specifically but it probably was, yeah. 26 Q.274So here Mr. Gilmartin is bring bringing to the attention of the bank, the 27 prospect of giving an interview or becoming involved in some sort of an 28 investigative programme concerning Quarryvale and Mr. O'Callaghan, isn't that 29 right? 30 A. That's what it says. 57 1 Q.275Something which was of alarm to the bank in that it might put in jeopardy the 2 prospect of an anchor tenant or the development of the company, isn't that 3 right? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q.276Did you ever raise with Mr. O'Callaghan any issues concerning the zoning or 6 rezoning of Quarryvale at any stage? 7 A. In what context? 8 Q.277Well were there ever any controversy concerning the rezoning of Quarryvale that 9 everything in relation to the rezoning had been above board and properly 10 accounted for? 11 A. I think as I stated earlier on today and it's probably relevant in the context 12 of that note, that the comment that I made in relation to that note, the note 13 about the July note. Is that I may not have specifically asked Owen 14 O'Callaghan in fact I'm, I probably did not ask him whether or not he had been 15 involved in a list of payments to councillors. That would have been an 16 inappropriate question to have asked a very upstanding customer. 17 18 So all I can say is I can't, I doubt if I asked him that specific question. 19 What I can say and I have said on a number of occasions today and yesterday, is 20 that in any conversation if there had ever been a mention of elicit payments, 21 that would clearly have stood in my mind and rang alarm bells and that did not 22 arise. 23 Q.278I think in 1995 in August '95, there was an issue concerning planning 24 controversy vis-a-vis a firm of Newry solicitors, isn't that right? It seems 25 to have been in some controversy Donnelly Newry Donnelly were raising issues 26 concerning planning controversies, isn't that correct? 27 A. Are you asking me is that correct? 28 Q.279Yeah, do you recall that controversy existing in 1995 in August 1995? 29 A. Not specifically. Is there something here you want to show me? 30 Q.280Yes that -- 58 1 A. That would be helpful and then I could answer the question. 2 Q.28111923 please. This is a memo of a phone call with Mr. O'Callaghan on the 23rd 3 of August '95. And I just want to bring to your attention the very last item 4 noted by you in this memo and it reads as follows. That's 11923. It reads as 5 follows I raised the -- 6 A. Just wait for it now please. 7 Q.282Yeah, at the bottom of the page. "I raised the issue of the planning 8 controversy vis-a-vis the Newry solicitors etc. He indicated that this had 9 absolutely nothing to do with him or with Quarryvale". 10 A. Okay. 11 Q.283Would you agree with me, that seems if suggest that you raised planning 12 controversies with Mr. O'Callaghan in the context of Quarryvale? 13 A. Well I'll read the note. You've just read the note. "I raised the issue of 14 the planning controversy vis-a-vis the Newry solicitors etc. He indicated that 15 this had absolutely nothing to do with him or with Quarryvale". 16 Q.284Yes. 17 A. So I, I don't know. All I'm saying that I am not trying to be evasive. I 18 don't know what the issue of the planning issue vis-a-vis the Newry solicitors 19 was. Was it to do with Quarryvale? 20 21 CHAIRMAN: It was an offer advertised by the Newry solicitors, offer of a 22 payment to anybody coming forward with information relating to corruption, the 23 planning process and -- 24 A. Yes, I vaguely remember that, yes. 25 26 Q.285MR. QUINN: Can I ask you, Mr. O'Farrell, how many of the developers that you 27 were dealing with in 1995 did you raise that issue with? 28 A. I've no recollection. I have no recollection whether, I have no recollection. 29 Q.286Now, if we could come please to the memo of a meeting that you had with Mr. 30 O'Callaghan or a phone call you had with Mr. O'Callaghan on the 2nd of March 59 1 1994, at 10805. 2 3 And before I come to this you will recall yesterday that in the mark up in 4 relation to Riga for the advance or which sanctioned and an advance in March 5 1993, included in that mark up was a reference to a valuation provided by HOK 6 in relation to the Quarryvale site. And you might recall that it referred to 7 the disadvantage to the Quarryvale site if the Blanchardstown site managed to 8 get anchor tenants in advance of it, isn't that right? 9 A. Yes, yes, yes. 10 Q.287Now, this is a phone conversation memo taken by you on Mr. O'Callaghan in March 11 '94. And I think it commences as follows it says "The planning permission is 12 ready to issue. But it will be the end of March before it does so. No 13 problems are envisaged. He is meeting John Fitzgerald County Manager tomorrow. 14 The delay of about one month from anticipated timeframes relates to the setup 15 of the new Council in bedding in issues. He is absolutely certain that 16 permission will be out by the end of March. If there are any difficulties he 17 will immediately let me know." 18 19 And then he deals with Marks & Spencers and in fact he was meeting people in 20 relation to it. And then this is what I want to raise with you. You go on to 21 report record the following. 22 23 "I raised the matter of designation with him. He indicated that he is aware 24 that Blanchardstown has been seeking designation. He has indicated in 25 political circles that he is not seeking designation for Quarryvale on the 26 basis that same is not forthcoming for Blanchardstown either. He believes that 27 he is well ahead of Blanchardstown in terms of anchor interest and the 28 introduction of designation to both sides would level of the playing pitch and 29 he would loose his advantage. He is happy that designation for Blanchardstown 30 is not on the agenda. A further factor in this regard would be the financial 60 1 pressure that the various Councils are under. Designation will of course 2 reduce revenues available to the Council over the next ten years because of 3 rates remissions" and then he advised you that he was "in constant contact with 4 Mr. Gilmartin etc.". 5 6 What caused you to raise the designation of Blanchardstown with Mr. O'Callaghan 7 in March '94? 8 A. I don't know. 9 Q.288Yes. 10 A. And I have asked that myself that question because clearly this note has been 11 in the public domain and has been commented on in various publications. So I 12 would have got out the note some time ago to put it into context and I don't 13 know specifically why I did raise the matter of designation. I can only assume 14 that there was some talk at the time about sites being designated or different 15 developments being designated but I don't know precisely. 16 Q.289At this stage I think the bank or Barkhill is indebted Barkhill as a result of 17 a recent advance in March '93, of up to I think it was anticipated 20 million I 18 think by June '94, isn't that right? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q.290And you have agreed with me that each zoning increased the value of the site 21 and, presumably, planning would increase it further and designation on the site 22 would increase it even further still? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q.291It would be fair to say that reading this note that designation was an issue, 25 in your mind at least in March '94, the designation of either Quarryvale or 26 Blanchardstown? 27 A. As I stated a minute ago, I obviously had a reason for raising a matter of 28 designation with him at the time. What stimulated that reason I don't know. 29 Maybe there was some talk at the time about developments being designated as I 30 stated. 61 1 Q.292Yes. And -- 2 A. Perhaps I wanted clarity on what the position was. 3 Q.293And obviously Mr. O'Callaghan was alive to the issue of designation, as appears 4 from the note, isn't that right? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q.294And he was alive to the issue to the extent that he knew that Blanchardstown 7 had been seeking designation? 8 A. Yes that's what the note says absolutely. 9 Q.295And he was further alive to the issue? 10 A. I think though as well my recollection is it was probably well known because 11 Tallaght had got designated and I think, I don't know whether Mr. Greene was 12 still involved or Mr. Corcoran was still involved in Blanchardstown and 13 certainly that was something that he always -- 14 Q.296Mr. Corcoran I think had on the part of Blanchardstown because if we look at 15 10193, we see a memo of a meeting at Bank Centre with Mr. O'Callaghan and 16 Mr. Kelleher on the 29th of September '93. And I think if we go to 10194 we 17 note or the note records that -- 18 A. What date is that on sorry? 19 Q.297This is dated September '93. 20 A. '93. 21 Q.298And I think as I say 10194, it records. 22 "In relation to the Blanchardstown development, Green and O'Callaghan said that 23 they should now reduce the size of their development 200,000 square feet and 24 change the layout from their original plan. He felt that they would be 25 prepared to give a sweet deal to Dunnes Stores in order to get them into the 26 development. We mentioned that we had recently met with Stephen Vernon the new 27 MD of Green. O'Callaghan had not yet met with him". Isn't that right? 28 A. Yes, that's what he states. 29 Q.299And I think in fact on the 16th of September. That note was dated 29th of 30 September, on the 16th of September at 10135, you had lunch with Mr. Deane and 62 1 he brought you up-to-date on a number of issues, isn't that right? 2 A. Well this note says a meeting with Owen O'Callaghan. Sorry -- this was the 3 previous note, sorry. 4 Q.300The note now on screen is a note prepared by you as a result of a luncheon with 5 Mr. Deane. 6 A. Okay. 7 Q.301And I think you see there. 8 "No meeting has taken place with Stephen Vernon. There had been talk about 9 this some time ago but they are waiting for Vernon to instigate same." 10 A. That's what it says, yes. 11 Q.302So Mr. O'Callaghan -- if I go back now to your phone call with Mr. O'Callaghan 12 in March '94, at 10805. You have agreed with me I think that the issue of the 13 designation of Blanchardstown was something that you raised. It was something 14 that was, obviously, uppermost in your mind at this time for whatever reason? 15 A. "Uppermost" might be too strong a word. 16 Q.303Well it's something that you raised in a phone call with Mr. O'Callaghan rather 17 than at a meeting with Mr. O'Callaghan, isn't that right? 18 A. Perhaps the circumstances warranted it. I am just questioning the word 19 "uppermost". It was clearly a factor in my mind. 20 Q.304A factor in your mind?. 21 A. Yes. 22 Q.305It was also something that Mr. O'Callaghan had given consideration to, isn't 23 that right? 24 A. From the second point in the note that's clear. 25 Q.306And "He had acted on it, to the extent that he had in political circles as you 26 recall here indicated that he was not seeking designation for Quarryvale 27 provided that Blanchardstown didn't get designation either." Isn't that right? 28 A. That's what my note records. 29 Q.307And that he was seeking that for very good reason because he felt that 30 designation of both sides would give an advantage to Blanchardstown, isn't that 63 1 right? 2 A. Well with respect. I mean, you have read that note and that's what I am 3 reading here. You are just repeating what's in the note. 4 Q.308Yes. 5 A. So I can only go on what the note says. I don't recall the phone call. I 6 don't recall the conversation. And I am reading the note the same as you are. 7 Q.309Yes. But you took -- you made this call or you took this call from Mr. 8 O'Callaghan. You raised this issue with Mr. O'Callaghan. Your were present 9 when this conversation took place, isn't that right? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q.310And the conversation is recounted by you here was that Mr. O'Callaghan had 12 raised the issue of designation in political circles, isn't that right? 13 A. If you just pull up that paragraph please. 14 Q.311Yes. "He has indicated in political circles that he is not seeking designation 15 for Quarryvale on the basis that the same is not forthcoming for Blanchardstown 16 either"? 17 A. That's what my note records, absolutely. 18 Q.312So he was indicating in political circles that Blanchardstown should not get 19 designation isn't that right? 20 A. But with respect. My note clearly states. I am not going to paraphrase or 21 change my note because it was done 15 years ago. 22 Q.313Yes? 23 A. And I don't recall the conversation. I know no more about this comment than is 24 on this note. 25 Q.314Yes? 26 A. So I am absolutely happy, as I said on many occasions, to stand over my 27 contemporaneous notes. If that's what I said there, that's what's stated to 28 me. 29 Q.315And, presumably, you were glad to hear that your project manager was alive to 30 the whole issue of designation and the possibility of the Blanchardstown 64 1 designation? 2 A. Mr. O'Callaghan was very alive to all dimensions of development in relation to 3 Quarryvale and all things that could impact on it, he was a very experienced 4 developer. 5 Q.316And designation was a political issue isn't that right? The issue of whether 6 or not designation was granted was a matter for the government isn't that 7 right? 8 A. As I understand it, yes. 9 Q.317In the same way as the zoning of a site was a matter for the councillors, isn't 10 that right, the elected councillors? 11 A. I think that's correct, yes. 12 Q.318Now, you had been speaking to Mr. O'Callaghan and Mr. Deane in relation to the 13 Stadium in the lead up to this conversation, isn't that right, because if we 14 revert -- 15 A. You will have to remind me. 16 Q.319If we revert to your memo of the 16th of September '93. If we go to page 17 10136. This now is the memo on the luncheon you had with Mr. Deane. You 18 record under the heading? 19 A. What date is that again? 20 Q.320That's the 16th of September 93? 21 A. Okay. 22 Q.321Under the heading "National Stadium" you record the following. 23 "He indicated that Owen had been in discussion with the Taoiseach and the 24 Minister for Finance in relation to same. It could be that the State would be 25 willing to inject a 5 million pounds annual subvention to the project on the 26 running costs basis. Based on projections they believe that the final debt 27 could be around 12 million. Their strategy remains not to get directly 28 involved in same but if something is going to happen to ensure that they can 29 get some kind of a project manager fee or a finders fee out of same" isn't that 30 right? 65 1 A. That's what the note states, yes. 2 Q.322So the previous September at lunch with Mr. Deane you were advised that Mr. 3 O'Callaghan had been discussing the Stadium project with both the Taoiseach 4 Mr. Reynolds and the Minister for Finance, Mr. Ahern, isn't that right? 5 A. That's what it states, yes. 6 Q.323And I think you had agreed with me yesterday that you had known that Mr. 7 O'Callaghan appeared to have strong political connections, isn't that correct? 8 A. That's correct. 9 Q.324And was particularly, had particular influence or with political parties, isn't 10 that right? 11 A. I don't remember saying that. 12 Q.325Okay. Well strong political connections, in any event? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q.326And here in September '93, you are being advised that he is meeting both the 15 Minister for Finance and the Taoiseach. Meeting government Ministers at the 16 highest level, isn't that right in relation to the Stadium project? 17 A. That's what it states, yes. 18 Q.327And in fact I think in December '93, at 10553 in a further telephone 19 conversation with Mr. O'Callaghan. If we look at the last paragraph. You 20 record the following "He went on to indicate that he is meeting Albert Reynolds 21 and Bertie Ahern later today in connection with the sports stadium. I 22 expressed surprise at this. He indicated that he had no real option but to 23 continue his discussions in relation to this Stadium in that there is enormous 24 political interest in same. He will not be moving anything forward unless 25 there is significant State subsidies. 26 27 He mentioned 5 million per annum. He mentioned that the project could work but 28 obviously it is at a fairly early stage". 29 30 So in December '93, again Mr. O'Callaghan is advising you on the phone of 66 1 meetings he is having again with the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance. I 2 don't think that the meeting with the Minister for Finance took place at this 3 time. But you were being advised of that in a conversation with him. 4 A. Yes. 5 Q.328And I think even in early January '94, if we look at 10610, in a further phone 6 call with Mr. O'Callaghan. Again in relation to the Stadium you record the 7 following as having been told to you by him if we look at the last paragraph 8 "As regards the Stadium, he had a meeting with Albert Reynolds recently who was 9 very keen. There had been seeking 5 million per annum subvention. He is 10 meeting Bertie Ahern on this issue in the next two weeks. 11 12 If such subvention comes through, he believes the product variable however it 13 will all hinge on the discussions with Bertie Ahern. He feels that he has no 14 choice but to keep this project alive in view of his previous commitments in 15 relation to same and to retain his credibility with the politicians and in the 16 local area etc." So that was in January '94, isn't that right? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q.329And we know that you are having a conversation in March '94, with Mr. 19 O'Callaghan at 10815, this time in the context of the designation of 20 Blanchardstown, isn't that right? 21 A. That's right. 22 Q.33010805. And you are being told that Mr. O'Callaghan is letting it been be known 23 in political circles that he is not looking for the designation of Quarryvale 24 provided there is no designation for Blanchardstown, isn't that right? 25 A. That's what it says, yes. 26 Q.331Would it be fair to say that your understanding at this stage of your 27 conversation with Mr. O'Callaghan, was that he was speaking to both Mr. Ahern 28 and Mr. Reynolds amongst other politicians, in relation to the matter having 29 regard to the sequence of meetings that you had been advised of previously? 30 A. No, I couldn't make that deduction, no, I couldn't. I don't know how it could 67 1 be made. 2 Q.332I see. Well as early as September '93, you had been advised of his meetings 3 with Mr. Ahern and Mr. Reynolds? 4 A. Well I don't know who he was speaking to about this. I mean, you are making a 5 jump the fact that he was speaking on the Stadium to certain politicians that 6 this was the context here. I don't know whether it was or not. 7 Q.333Well what did you understand by the reference to letting it be known in 8 political circles that he wasn't seeking designation for -- 9 A. Well I can't remember now as I've stated. 10 Q.334Well doing the best you can and on reflection and with the use and with the aid 11 of the memo, can you advise or help the Tribunal on what you understood Mr. 12 O'Callaghan was referring to when he indicated to you, that he had let it be 13 known in political circles that he wasn't looking for the designation of 14 Quarryvale provided it wasn't coming through for Blanchardstown either? 15 A. Well he has indicated political circles. That means that at a political level 16 he had advised that he is not seeking designation for Quarryvale. I can't go 17 any further than that or I would be speculating. 18 Q.335It's just four o'clock, Sir. 19 20 CHAIRMAN: All right. We'll sit tomorrow at half past ten. 21 22 THE TRIBUNAL THEN ADJOURNED UNTIL THE FOLLOWING DAY, 23 THURSDAY, 17TH APRIL 2008, AT 10:30 A.M: 24 25 26 27 28 29 30