Judgment reserved on Dunnes attempt to block post

Judgment will be delivered next Wednesday on a challenge by Dunnes Stores to the Tanaiste's appointment of an authorised officer to two of its companies.

At the end of the four-day hearing yesterday, Ms Justice Laffoy reserved judgment on the challenge taken by Dunnes Stores Ireland and Dunnes Stores (Ilac Centre). Dunnes wants an order quashing the appointment of the authorised officer and declarations that the company was entitled to reasons for the appointment, in advance and/or on demand, so it could make representations.

It also wants a declaration that it is entitled to any information on which the decision to appoint an officer was based.

In closing submissions yesterday, Mr Eoghan Fitzsimons SC, for Ms Harney, said there was certain information available to the Minister last July when she believed the appointment was necessary.

That information included the McCracken report, counsel said. He quoted from sections referring to payments by the "Dunnes Stores Group" to former minister Mr Michael Lowry to "assist him in evading tax".

He said the report also referred to a payment of £50,000 from Mr Bernard Dunne to Mr Lowry by way of a payment to Streamline Enterprises drawn on a Dunnes Stores No 7 account and lodged by Mr Lowry to his own account at the Irish Permanent Building Society, Patrick Street, Cork.

Mr Fitzsimons said such material constituted, for the purposes of the Companies Act, a suggestion that the affairs of Dunnes Stores Ireland had been conducted with intent to defraud the creditors of another person.

Counsel said Mrs Margaret Heffernan, in an affidavit, had also referred to a payment for Tripleplan from Dunnes Stores (Bangor).

The Minister's official, Mr Paul Appleby, had stated in an affidavit that the cost of that payment, £282,500, was transferred to Dunnes Stores Ireland.

Mr Fitzsimons said Mrs Heffernan had not denied what Mr Appleby had claimed.

He said the money had gone to an account in the name of Mr John Furze and another man and Mr Furze had featured in the McCracken report.

Counsel said he was saying only that an inference could be drawn which suggested the affairs of Dunnes Stores Ireland had been conducted with intent to defraud the creditors of another company.

Mr Fitzsimons rejected submissions on behalf of Dunnes that it was entitled to any information relating to the company which emerged from inquiries by authorised officers into Garuda, Celtic Helicopters and Guinness & Mahon Ireland.

He submitted the Minister was precluded by the Companies Act from giving such information unless the companies involved consented.

But he submitted the information could be disclosed to a court.

Replying, Mr Adrian Hardiman SC, for Dunnes, said Mr Fitzsimons had raised several matters that day.

If any had been advanced as reasons for the appointment of an authorised officer, there would either be no case before the court or a different case.

He said the Minister wanted to advance some documents but not to say exactly what documents she had.

Her case had been advanced on the basis that she did not have to state reasons for the appointment and she could not alter that position now.

Mr Hardiman also rejected the suggestion that the Freedom of Information Act applied to persons and not companies.

He repeated his submission that Dunnes was entitled, under the Act, to the reasons and information it sought.