I'm confused again.
From early in the article ...
1) HPE want to call Egan as a witness.
2) Lynch opposes this.
3) Yet Lynch's own lawyers "wanted to put it to Egan in person that his witness statement "is, in large part, false".
So why oppose him as a live witness, the best opportunity to achieve 3) is to have him appear as a witness, on oath, in the dock.
( aside from the issue of Egan not wanting to attend nor ability to make him do so).