Michael Lowry's accountant told the tribunal in correspondence that he could not understand how he came to be noted by a London solicitor as saying the former minister was connected with a £4.3 million sterling Doncaster property transaction owned by Denis O'Brien.
Correspondence from Denis O'Connor was read out as part of the tribunal's ongoing inquiry into whether Mr Lowry had any connection with the 1998 property transaction, which Mr O'Brien has said was exclusively his.
Jerry Healy SC, for the tribunal, read out the content of a memo taken by London solicitor Ruth Collard, in September 2002. Ms Collard is a partner with Carter Ruck solicitors, who were representing the O'Brien family in a dispute with the vendors of the Doncaster stadium.
Mr O'Connor, at the meeting with Ms Collard, was noted as saying the vendors wanted to cause maximum embarrassment to a number of parties, including Mr Lowry. Ms Collard said that as far as she was aware, Mr Lowry had no connection to the proceedings.
The note continued: "Denis O'Connor said that Michael Lowry did have a connection and that he had been in the room when discussions had taken place between Kevin Phelan and Ken Richardson regarding the lease. Ruth Collard said no one had ever suggested that to her previously." Mr Phelan was acting for the purchasers of the stadium and Mr Richardson was the principal vendor.
Mr Healy read out responses to the tribunal from Mr O'Connor yesterday. In one response, dated June 2004, Mr O'Connor informed the tribunal that he took issue with a number of points recorded by Ms Collard in the note.
He said some involved clear misunderstandings by Ms Collard, whereas with others he said he couldn't say what was meant by the note.
In another response to the tribunal, dated July 2004, he said his visit to see Ms Collard in relation to the dispute with the vendors had nothing to do with Mr Lowry. He had gone at the suggestion of Denis O'Brien snr and had not told Mr Lowry about it.
He said he could not understand the reference to Mr Lowry being in a room with Mr Phelan and Mr Richardson and had never had the view that Mr Lowry had ever been involved with the Doncaster transaction.
He said he had mentioned Mr Lowry at the meeting and the possibility that parties with vested interests might seek to link Mr Lowry to the Doncaster transaction.
If the note recorded him saying Mr Lowry had an involvement with Doncaster, this may have arisen from his saying that parties were seeking to create the impression that Mr Lowry was involved, in the context of the tribunal's ongoing inquiries into Mr Lowry.
In another part of the same note Ms Collard recorded Mr O'Connor as saying that he was trying to sort out, on behalf of Denis O'Brien snr, a dispute with Kevin Phelan arising out of the Doncaster transaction.
Mr O'Connor, in the July 2004 response, said he'd had a general awareness of the dispute with Mr Phelan, but had no direct involvement other than being so aware.
He also said he had "no idea" what was meant in the note where he was recorded as saying that Mr Phelan had made threats to cause trouble to Mr Lowry.
