The Revenue Commissioners applied to the High Court yesterday for access to documents gathered by the inspectors into the affairs of Ansbacher Cayman Limited but not included in their published report. The documents are lodged in court.

The application is being opposed by the Ansbacher bank and the inspectors. The inspectors said they had "concerns" about the Revenue Commissioners' application. One inspector, Ms Noreen Mackey, said any disclosure of information beyond that contained in the report would breach an understanding or obligation of confidentiality. The inspectors have also voiced concerns about the effect of the Revenue's application on future inquiries.

Mr James Connolly SC, for the Revenue, said the application was under Section 12 of the 1990 Companies Act which provided a wide discretion to the court to remedy a disability suffered by any person as a result of the way in which a company under investigation by inspectors has been conducted.

Because of the way Ansbacher Cayman Limited was operated, the Revenue was contending it had suffered large shortfalls in the amount of revenue which would otherwise be recoverable from individual bank deposit holders of this bank.

More to the point, the Revenue had suffered a substantial information deficit, which was still continuing, because of the modus operandi of this bank which was effectively driven towards widespread and concentrated tax evasion on the part of depositors of the bank.

The Revenue contended that those two elements constituted a disability but this could be remedied by the court directing the documents should be given to the Commissioners for their consideration to pursue, as they saw fit, the appropriate tax payers who were in default of their obligations under the tax code.

The whole shape of the legislation (which set up the investigation) envisaged not just investigations under the direction of the court and the provision of an inspectors' report, but also the use of the material obtained on foot of those reports, counsel said. The legislation, for example, provided for the use of testimony given by individuals under investigation by the inspectors in subsequent civil proceedings.

Mr Connolly said the Revenue argued the appropriate way to interpret Section 12 of the Companies Act was to allow the court to redress as far as possible the disability that had been suffered by his clients regarding how the bank had operated.

If he was wrong in that interpretation of Section 12, the court had in any event an inherent jurisdiction to direct the disclosure of the information to the Revenue.

The Commissioners had previously argued that the court should consider this was a matter of public interest and that the Revenue authorities should have access to the court and to the documentation. The Attorney General, as guardian of the public interest, had indicated that he was also of the view that it was in the public interest that the documentation be made available.

A balancing exercise had arisen which resulted from the position being adopted by the Ansbacher bank. The bank said there was a public interest in that the inspectors conducting the investigations ought to have available to them full and frank disclosure and co-operation of individuals who were summoned to assist the inspectors.

Frankness and co-operation might not always be expected if there was a perception in some way that the documents could be transferred to the Commissioners or in some other way percolate to the Revenue authorities or to other State agencies, it was argued.

Mr Connolly said this position adopted by the bank was flawed. All the legal authorities indicated there was a public interest which stated that wrong-doing should be identified, disclosed to the appropriate public agencies and in certain circumstances revealed also to the public.

In considering the balancing of the public interest, the claims of the Revenue should prevail, he argued. The inspectors' inquiry had been instigated following the McCracken tribunal which identified certain irregularities in the way in which Ansbacher affairs were conducted.

This has been an investigation directed specifically towards suspected widespread tax evasion. It was illogical to contend that there was a public interest in having a full and thorough investigation of tax evasion by inspectors if that in turn did not yield up information that could be acted upon by the appropriate parties to do something about remedying whatever shortfall in revenue or information deficit resulted from that systematic tax evasion.

The Revenue was not seeking access to any of the inspectors' work notes or legal advice given to them but wanted access to documentation and an opportunity to take copies at this stage. If necessary, further applications in relation to specific documents could be made at a later stage.

Mr Connolly said he wanted to emphasise that the Revenue authorities were under a statutory obligation in dealing confidentially with the affairs of tax payers and would be dealing with this material in a confidential way. This was a situation where the Revenue authorities could not have obtained all of the information now being sought by using the powers available under the tax codes.

Without knowing the identity of a particular individual behind a number account the Revenue Commissioners were not in a position to make a court application in relation to the relevant bank for documents pertaining to that individual, he pointed out.