DIRECTOR OF Corporate Enforcement Paul Appleby has said the Government and the Attorney General will have to review the law on the restriction of company directors in light of criticism by the Supreme Court.

In his first public comment on a ruling from the court that was strongly critical of his office when overturning a restriction of a non-executive director of a defunct meat firm, Mr Appleby said his office would happily contribute to such a review. The ruling led to an agreement from Mr Appleby to explain in writing the reasons for any future overruling of a liquidator's request to be relieved of a statutory duty to take restriction proceedings against a director.

Mr Appleby's office had refused a request from the liquidator of Tralee Beef and Lamb to be relieved of his duty to bring proceedings against accountant Simon Coyle, a non-executive director of the company. Mr Coyle represented the interest of a business expansion scheme (BES) on the board of the firm, which went into liquidation six years ago with liabilities of more than €5 million.

At a conference yesterday, Mr Appleby made the point that a statistical analysis of cases since his office assumed responsibility to "filter" restriction proceedings in 2003 suggested his office made the "right call" most of the time.

The office relieves liquidators of the obligation to seek restriction orders in three out of every four cases, he said. Restriction orders were issued in an average 80 per cent of cases that went to court and that may have risen to 96 per cent last year. His office had accepted 94 per cent of all recommendations to grant relief since 2003.

Financial Services Ombudsman Joe Meade took issue with an article in The Irish Times last Friday which suggested that Mr Appleby's budget meant it was "implausible" that his office would be able to take on in the courts those involved in the Fyffes/DCC insider trading affair.

"Before I make any decision I do not consider whether the matter may be appealed to the High Court. My duty is to decide on a complaint on the basis the evidence before me," he said.

Mr Appleby said he worked in same way. "I'm required to be independent and I act impartially." He did not comment on the question of taking action himself in the Fyffes/DCC case, given his reminder to the High Court that it can of its own volition make disqualification orders in the case. "I'm not going to cross bridges before they arise," he said.