Mr Justice Feargus Flood has rejected applications by lawyers representing several Dublin County Councillors to halt Mr Frank Dunlop from continuing his evidence.
Counsel for Cllr Liam Cosgrave, Senator Don Lydon and the family of the late Mr Tom Hand had argued that the evidence given by Mr Dunlop this morning bore no resemblance to the statements they were furnished by the tribunal.
Mr Michael O'Higgins, SC for Mr Cosgrave, said he listened with "complete and utter astonishment" to the evidence given against Mr Lydon, and had "deep concerns" that his client would be subjected to similar allegations.
Mr Dunlop's oral evidence was far more extensive and damning of his client than his written submission, he said. He accused the tribunal lawyers of being aware of all the evidence to be given in public by Mr Dunlop, and choosing not to make it available to the legal teams of those against whom allegations were being made.
If this was not true, and the tribunal "was completely unaware as we all are of this evidence", then it was unacceptable that it be delivered "on the hoof" by Mr Dunlop. It made consultation with clients "a complete waste of time", he said.
Mr Seamus Ó Tuathail, SC for Mr Lydon, said this morning was the first time many of the claims about his client had surfaced, and he was "amazed, shocked and surprised" by what he had heard. Mr Lydon was being severely damaged by the claims, he said, and called for all of Mr Dunlop's evidence to be given in advance.
Lawyers for the family of Mr Hand also called for all allegations against him to be made available so their clients could decide on what action to take.
Counsel for the tribunal, Mr John Gallagher SC, insisted that there was no attempt to hide evidence and he had been as "surprised" as anyone by this morning's proceedings. But, Mr Dunlop is "entitled to furnish a statement which can be as expansive or minimalist as he may choose," he said.
"This is a public sitting and if it were simply a matter of reading out a statement that a witness chooses to submit, then it would be a pointless excercise."
Mr Flood, in rejecting the application, said the witness was entitled to be questioned in public in order to provide context to his statement. "Oral evidence, by its very nature, is almost always more expansive than written evidence", he said.
He noted there had been no objections from the floor this morning while Mr Dunlop was in the process of outlining his claims of bribery against councillors.
