The High Court yesterday rejected a bid by the Attorney General and Director of Corporate Enforcement to have disclosed the identities of two people, who had taken legal proceedings aimed at preventing their being named as Ansbacher clients in the forthcoming inspectors' report on the Ansbacher deposits.

The application to have the identities of his clients disclosed had a touch of "political voyeurism", complained Mr Michael Collins SC, for the two. Earlier this week, the pair lost their legal bid to remain anonymous in proceedings initiated in the name of a firm of solicitors representing them both.

After Mr Justice McCracken ruled on Wednesday that he had no jurisdiction to hear in camera the application for the proceedings to be heard in camera, the case was adjourned to allow time for both sides to consider the decision.

When the judge sat yesterday, counsel for both the Director of Corporate Enforcement and the Attorney General sought to have the title of the proceedings amended so as to name the individuals on whose behalf the case was taken.

But after hearing submissions from counsel for all sides, the judge refused the application.

Another judge who heard the (initial) application agreed to permit the application to be brought in the name of the firm of solicitors, he said. To disclose the identities of the applicants now would be going against undertakings he himself had also given in the proceedings.

Mr Justice McCracken added he could not bind the Supreme Court - in the event of an appeal going there - to hear the preliminary point in the name of the firm of solicitors. If the applicants went to the Supreme Court, they did so at their own risk.

Mr Michael Collins SC, for the applicants, said he was well aware of that. If they wanted to proceed further in the High Court, a motion would have to be issued in the names of his clients. They were taking instructions in relation to an appeal to the Supreme Court.

In opposing an application for an order for costs against his clients, Mr Collins said the two people were in a similar situation to hundreds. What had been before the court was a pure legal point of public interest. But Mr Justice McCracken allowed the application on behalf of the director for costs against the applicants.

The case arose from the appointment of inspectors by the High Court in September 1999 to investigate the affairs of Ansbacher (Cayman) Ltd - formerly Guinness Mahon Cayman Trust Ltd and Cayman International Bank and Trust Co Ltd.

In applying to have the title of the case amended so as to have the two individuals named, Mr Eoghan Fitzsimons SC, for the Director of Corporate Enforcement, said it would follow from the judgment earlier this week that an order would now be made declaring that the proceedings should be brought in the name of the two individuals.

Mr Feichin McDonagh SC, for the Attorney General, said his side was strongly supporting Mr Fitzsimons' application. He believed it would be inconsistent with what the court had said if the identity of the two individuals who moved before the court was to be "hermetically sealed". That would be a grave disservice to the administration of justice.

Replying, Mr Collins said it was surprising that the Director of Corporate Enforcement should make the present application and that the Attorney General should support it was even more suprising.