Judgment will be given today in the Ansbacher deposits case where two individuals are seeking a hearing without revealing their identities.
The two are trying to prevent their names being included in the report of the inspectors investigating Ansbacher Cayman.
Mr Justice McCracken will give his ruling today on the preliminary issue as to whether he can hear an application from the individuals to have their case heard anonymously.
How he rules on the issue is likely to have a significant effect on the timing of the release of the Ansbacher report.
The Attorney General, Mr Michael McDowell SC, and the Director of Corporate Enforcement, Mr Paul Appleby, have opposed the hearing of any application by Mr Justice McCracken from the two individuals without their revealing their identity.
It is thought that whichever side loses will appeal the issue to the Supreme Court.
But if Mr Justice McCracken rules for the applicants he may listen to their case - that they be allowed take a case anonymously - so that his ruling on that issue also, if appealed, can be reviewed by the Supreme Court at the same time as the decision on the preliminary issue of whether he could hear from them at all.
It is only if the applicants are successful on both issues that they may then argue their case that the High Court exceeded its powers when, under the Companies Acts, it instructed the inspectors to name clients of Ansbacher Cayman.
They will argue the Acts allow for inquiring into firms, not clients.
If they are successful in this, the inspectors' report would not name any Ansbacher account holders.
If the two individuals win the preliminary point - that the High Court is allowed consider letting them take a case anonymously - the way would be open to them, should they lose this case, to initiate another.
Counsel for the two, Mr Michael Collins SC, has already said they are considering taking a separate case where they will argue that the inspectors' definition of what constitutes a client is wrong.
If the court rules today that the High Court has no power to consider allowing applicants to make anonymous rulings, and is supported in this decision by the Supreme Court, the individuals will be unable to continue with their efforts to keep their names out of the report, without revealing their identities in the process.
So whichever way the court rules today is likely to influence significantly when the long-awaited report will at last be published.
