Lawyers for a PR company being sued by Denis O’Brien have said sworn statements made by the businessman in his High Court action were full of unexplained contradictions and implausibility.
Mr O'Brien claims Red Flag Consulting was involved in a conspiracy to harm his interests.
He wants the High Court to order the company to identify a client who commissioned a dossier of information about him.
Red Flag says such an order is unjustified and would cause irreparable damage to its business as it has an obligation of confidentiality to clients.
On the second day of the hearing lawyers for Red Flag said there was a lack of candour in Mr O'Brien's application to the court and his statements had implausibility "slapped all over" them.
Senior Counsel Michael Collins said in Mr O'Brien's first affidavit he said he hired "professional investigators" to carry out inquiries about the source of a possible campaign against him.
He said Mr O’Brien had given the impression he had hired a Jason Bourne type team of professionals to carry out a world-wide investigation.
He said it later turned out that it was an accountant in the Ukrainian capital Kiev, who simply carried out a "one-man desk search" for media stories that were publicly available.
He said it was one of the most extraordinary aspects of the case that a businessman with interests in Ireland, the Caribbean and the US who was worried about a hostile campaign against him would hire an accountant in Kiev to investigate matters.
He also pointed to Mr O'Brien's explanation as to how he became aware that Red Flag had compiled a dossier about him.
Mr Collins said Mr O’Brien had given the impression that he learned of Red Flag's involvement as a result of this inquiry but this was not the case.
In a subsequent statement Mr O'Brien said the Red Flag involvement was revealed to him after a USB stick arrived on his desk anonymously.
Mr Collins said the USB stick "simply materialised on his desk like Doctor Who's TARDIS".
He said a USB stick marked for his attention could not have simply arrived on his desk in his office at his business headquarters in Grand Canal Street as Mr O’Brien claims because it would have to have been delivered to someone or gone through security.
"It is inconceivable that someone just waltzed into his office and left it there yet there was no record of how it was delivered."
He said it was only after queries from his side that Mr O’Brien in a third affidavit said he gave the USB stick to his solicitor.
He said it was an extraordinary thing to do rather than give it to his IT staff. He said Mr O’Brien had said the code for the encrypted USB stick was written on the inside of the envelope.
Mr Collins said this was another extraordinary feature of the explanations given by Mr O'Brien.
"You would have to ask why would someone go to the trouble of encrypting a USB stick and then write the code for it on an envelope in which it was contained? It would be like leaving your credit card with the PIN number."
He said Mr O’Brien, in response to queries from them, had said the envelope had been thrown away.
"So he thought the USB was of sufficient importance to hand it straight over to his solicitors but didn't think the envelope it arrived in was important?" Mr Collins said.
He said there was a "complete lack of frankness" in Mr O'Brien's initial ex-parte application for an extraordinary and draconian order to send a search party to Red Flag's premises.
Mr Collins said the lack of candour was a strong factor and was unusually strong in this case as they were being given information in dribs and drabs.
He said a court could refuse an application if there was a lack of candour.
Lawyers for Mr O'Brien said there was no lack of candour and nothing in Mr O'Brien's affidavits came close to non disclosure.
He said there was a huge difference between lack of candour and what the defendants might some day want to say was implausible but that was for another day.
"Time and time again he [Mr Collins] uses adjectives suggesting Mr O’Brien is lying and that has kind of morphed into his submission on lack of candour so it remains to be seen whether it is implausible, that is a matter for trial," Mr Cush said.
He also said the identity of Red Flag's client was very relevant whether it was a benign hedge fund or a rival.
Mr Justice Colm Mac Eochaidh remarked today there must be "PR companies all over the city wondering if they are involved in the tort of conspiracy".
He said he would give his judgment in the case before the end of the legal term.
