The High Court has reserved judgment on a bid by the Director of Corporate Enforcement to get documents from the inspectors who investigated the National Irish Bank tax evasion scandal of the 1990s.
The director, Paul Appleby, wants the documents in order to address challenges to adverse findings by the inspectors regarding a number of former directors and managers with the Bank.
The two-day hearing concluded yesterday before Mr Justice Peter Kelly who said he would give judgment at a later date.
The documents are being sought by the director to counter defences to proceedings brought by him, under Section 160 of the Companies Act, for orders restraining eight former directors and other employees of NIB and NIB Financial Services Ltd (NIBFSL) from being involved in the management of any company.
The eight respondents are - Jim Lacey, Pine Haven, Grove House Gardens, Blackrock, Co Dublin; Barry Seymour, Beaumond, Amersham, Bucks, England; Dermott Boner, Chesterfield Avenue, Castleknock, Dublin; Michael Keane, Corr Castle, Howth, Co Dublin; Frank Brennan, Ardglass, Dundrum, Dublin; Tom McMenamin, College Grove, Castleknock, Dublin; Patrick Byrne, St Helen's Road, Booterstown, Co Dublin; and Kevin Curran, Avondale Court, Blackrock, Co Dublin.
In closing submissions for the director, Brian Murray rejected claims that the Mr Appleby was seeking to re-open the six-year NIB investigation and argued that his application to procure the documents from the inspectors, under Section 12 of the Companies Act, was a "neat, convenient and efficient" way of addressing the respondents' defences.
If the documents were not procured from the inspectors, he would have to seek them individually from the eight respondents and from the bank.
This would prove more costly and time-consuming, counsel argued.
Counsel for the inspectors and for NIB and for several of the eight respondents opposed the documents being produced under the Section 12 procedure on a number of grounds. The inspectors and the bank both contend the inspectors' investigation is over following presentation of their report in July 2004 and that, if the inspectors were required now to produce documents, this would involve considerable time and expense.
John Gordon SC, for former NIB chief executive Mr Lacey, said the application was premature and ill-conceived and was an attempt to revisit the inspectors' report.
