Lawyers for two unidentified individuals who want to keep their names out of the report into the Ansbacher deposits will seek permission for an in camera hearing into the matter next week, writes Colm Keena.

A legal source said the matter raised major constitutional issues and that it could quite possibly end up in the Supreme Court.

In that event, the report into the Ansbacher deposits might not be published for some months and not until well after the General Election.

One holder of an Ansbacher account, who is to be named in the report, said he formed the impression in the middle of last month that the report had been completed.

Last week, however, the two unidentified individuals initiated their application for a judicial review.

When it came before Mr Justice McCracken yesterday, the application was adjourned until next Monday.

The adjournment was granted in open court and one of the first issues which will have to be decided next week is whether the application for an in camera hearing can itself be heard behind closed doors.

The Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE) was represented during yesterday's brief hearing and it may make its views known on the application, and the issue of whether it should be heard in open court, at next Monday's hearing.

The inspectors were not represented at yesterday's hearing and may play no role in the dispute.

Late last year, the inspectors began sending their findings to affected parties in order to allow them state whether they agreed or disagreed.

These responses may form part of the inspectors' eventual report.Some parties also sought clarifications.

The last of these are thought to have been dealt with by the middle of last month.

When the inspectors report to the High Court, their report will be given to Mr Paul Appleby, the Director of Corporate Enforcement.

He has taken over from the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Ms Harney, in relation to the matter. Ms Harney originally sought the appointment of the inspectors.

On yesterday's court listings, the Ansbacher case was simply listed as "in the matter of McCann Fitzgerald". McCann Fitzgerald is the solicitors' firm which is representing the unidentified applicants.

A number of years ago, the late Mrs Brigid McCole sought to bring a case anonymously against the Blood Transfusion Services Board, which she wanted to sue for giving her infected blood.

The High Court ruled, however,that this could not be done as the law had to be administered in public except in those instances stipulated in law. This principle is outlined in article 34 of the Constitution.

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that an application for a judicial review of a family law matter could not be heard in open court.

It decided that the intention of the Oireachtas - that family law issues be heard in camera - would be frustrated if a related application for a judicial review was heard in open court.

Such an application would involve details as to the parties involved.

A legal source said there was no provision in law whereby people due to be identified in High Court inspectors' reports, should be allowed have judicial reviews heard in camera.

A court has to have statutory authority to sit in camera, sources said. On the other hand, the sources said, it might be argued that as the inspectors' inquiry is held in private, judicial reviews of the process should also be held in private.

"These are interesting constitutional issues," said the source.