Ansbacher Cayman Ltd has signalled to the High Court that it believes the Central Bank should meet some of the costs of the court-appointed inspectors' investigation into Ansbacher's affairs.

The Minister for Justice is seeking to have Ansbacher Cayman and seven other companies pay the costs of the inspectors' investigation, Mr John Gordon SC, for Ansbacher, told the court yesterday. Ansbacher Cayman believed the Minister should also seek costs from the Central Bank and wanted the court to join the Central Bank as a third party to the Minister's motion.

His client had only taken over the Ansbacher bank in 1988 but the Central Bank had been aware of problems in the bank 15 years before that and was among the entities criticised in the inspectors' report, counsel said.

The first the Central Bank heard of this move by Ansbacher was last Friday when it got a letter from solicitors for the Bank, counsel for the Bank said.

The Central Bank saw no reason whatever for it to be joined to the Minister's motion and regarded Ansbacher's application as a bid to "create a sideshow" to divert attention from Ansbacher's "clear responsibility" for costs.

Mr Gordon said Ansbacher must be entitled to have the Central Bank joined and there was no question of it trying to hide some primary responsibility.

Ansbacher would say it had no such responsibility as it did not take over the bank until 1988, "15 years after the Central Bank was aware of the problems in it".

The President of the High Court, Mr Justice Finnegan, also heard that, in addition to Ansbacher, seven other companies would be resisting moves by the Minister for Justice to recoup the costs of the investigation from them.

The companies are arguing that, following a High Court decision in the Greencore case in 1992, the High Court has already ruled it has no jurisdiction to make orders for costs against parties named in a report but not the primary subject of the report's investigation.

The companies want Mr Justice Finnegan to determine, as a preliminary issue, whether the High Court has jurisdiction to make the costs orders sought by the Minister.

The judge was yesterday dealing with continuing preparations for the hearing of a number of legal applications arising from publication of the inspectors' report earlier this year.

He made directions for the service by the Minister of his claim for costs against Ansbacher and seven other companies and also made directions for the service of the defence of those companies. The claims and defences must be filed within eight weeks when the judge will again deal with the Minister's motion.

The companies are: Hamilton Ross Company Ltd, Guinness and Mahon (Ireland) Ltd, Guinness Mahon and Company Ltd (London), Henry Ansbacher Holdings plc, Cement Roadstone Holdings plc, Bank of Ireland Private Banking Ltd and Irish Investment Bank (IIB).

There was no appearance at yesterday's hearing on behalf of Guinness Mahon and Company Ltd (London). The company will be informed of the directions of the court.

The judge signalled his preliminary view that he would identify as a preliminary issue the matter of whether the High Court had jurisdiction to make the kind of costs orders sought by the Minister but said he first wanted to see the points of claim and points of defence advanced by the parties.

He remarked he was not entirely satisfied the court should follow the 1992 decision referred to.

He noted that the Flood Tribunal report had identified persons as not having co-operated with the tribunal. In the Ansbacher case, it could be found that the intention of the legislature was broader than that identified in the 1992 decision, he said.

Mr Michael Collins SC, for IIB, said the inspectors' report praised IIB for its co-operation with the inspectors and the Bank was "mystified" about how the Minister could be seeking costs against it.

The judge said he would hear Ansbacher's motion to have the Central Bank joined to the proceedings on November 1st. On November 5th, he would deal with motions from the Revenue Commissioners and the Director of Corporate Enforcement for access to documents gathered by the inspectors but not included in their published report.