Businessman and property developer Mr John Byrne was granted leave by the High Court yesterday to seek orders quashing findings referring to him which were included in the recently published Ansbacher report.
A full hearing of the judicial review proceedings is unlikely for several months and maybe not before next year.
The proceedings are against the four inspectors who prepared the report - Judge Sean O'Leary, Ms Noreen Mackey, Mr Paul Rowan and Mr Michael Cush.
Granting leave to bring the challenge, Mr Justcie McKechnie said he was expressing no view, tentative or otherwise, on what would be the outcome of the application itself or on the merits or otherwise of the documents in the case.
Having read the material in the case overnight and having considered the voluminous documentation, he was satisfied Mr Byrne had reached the threshold necessary for the granting of leave, the judge said.
The threshold for bringing judicial review proceedings involves establishing an arguable case.
The application to quash the report's findings relating to Mr Byrne was taken on the basis of claims that they were not justified by any evidence.
Mr Byrne also claims that trusts referred to in the report were governed by Cayman law and that the inspectors had not taken that into account.
Mr Byrne - who is aged 83 - also claims that while all four inspectors had purported to arrive at the conclusions in the report, those conclusions were based, at least in part, on evidence given by him to Judge O'Leary and Mr Rowan only.
While a court order had empowed two inspectors to interview Mr Byrne, the other two inspectors were precluded from reporting on him to the court in circumstances where the veracity of his evidence was in dispute unless the interview was conducted again in full with the missing inspectors in attendance.
No further interview was ever conducted with him by the other inspectors, he said.
In an affidavit presented by Mr Bill Shipsey SC, Mr Byrne said that on reading the report he was very surprised to find in it a very detailed analysis of the use of discretionary trusts by Irish clients of Ansbacher.
The inspectors had never disclosed to him that they were relying on certain matters contained in the report, Mr Byrne stated.
The preliminary report and final conclusions had explicitly stated to the contrary and he had been given no opportunity to address or respond to those matters.
Mr Byrne said the inspectors had not identified evidence to support their conclusion that funds held by Tristan Securities Ltd in Ansbacher were available to him for any purpose.
There was also no evidence to support the conclusion that he had power to apply or did apply them as he thought fit.
The report, insofar as he was concerned, and the procedures adopted by the inspectors in arriving at some conclusions, lacked transparency, Mr Byrne claims.
Accordingly some conclusions were contrary to natural and constitutional justice, it is contended.