The Director of Corporate Enforcement is seeking more documents gathered by the inspectors into the affairs of Ansbacher Cayman Limited but not included in the inspectors' report, the High Court heard yesterday.
The Director's application, his second, will be heard along with an application from the Revenue Commissioners, also seeking unpublished documents, on November 5th.
The director, Mr Paul Appleby, wants documents relating to a list of named persons, the court was told. There have been some problems in serving the previous motion on those affected, it emerged yesterday.
The President of the High Court, Mr Justice Finnegan, was dealing with a number of matters aimed at finalising arrangements for next month's hearing. He was told an affidavit from the inspectors would be filed within 10 days and he made directions for the exchange of legal submissions after that.
The Revenue say the documents it is seeking would be "of immeasurable assistance" in its investigations into identified Ansbacher clients and in establishing the identities of other Ansbacher clients.
During yesterday's hearing, there were some exchanges between lawyers for the Attorney General and Ansbacher Cayman about the positions being adopted by their clients towards the Revenue application.
At the November 5th hearing, the Revenue will argue for access to the documents with the Attorney General asserting it is in the public interest to grant the application. The bank will contend release of the documents is not in the public interest.
The inspectors, who were made a notice party to the applications by the Revenue and the director, have expressed some concerns about the Revenue application.
At an earlier hearing, Mr Shane Murphy, for the inspectors, said he would be making submissions in relation to issues relevant to this particular inspectorate.
Among the issues to be argued at next month's hearing are the scope of the court's discretion under Section 12 of the Companies Act to order the release of documents held by inspectors and whether the court has an inherent discretion to order the disclosure of documents. Another issue relates to whether the disclosure of the documents sought would be contrary to the public interest in relation to the investigations of companies.
A separate application by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform concerning the costs of the inspectorate has yet to be heard. The court has heard the Minister considers that Ansbacher Cayman Limited should bear the primary responsibility for the costs of the investigation. The Minister may also seek costs from a number of corporate bodies.
