A businessman has asked the High Court for leave to take a legal challenge aimed at quashing findings relating to him in the recently published report by the court-appointed inspectors into the affairs of Ansbacher (Cayman) Limited.
Mr Justice McKechnie will give his decision today.
Mr Bill Shipsey SC, for Mr John Byrne (83), Simmonscourt Road, Ballsbridge, Dublin, said his client was seeking several orders. Mr Byrne was contending that a section of the inspectors' report contained a number of findings which were not justified by the evidence. He also argued there was no, or alternatively no adequate, evidence to support the findings.
The intended proceedings are against the inspectors who compiled the report - Judge Seán O'Leary, Ms Noreen Mackey, Mr Paul Rowan and Mr Michael Cush.
In the report, when referring to an entity known as the Tristan Trust, the inspectors stated they were satisfied "that the legal ownership of the group was vested in the trust but the control remained with Mr Byrne".
Mr Byrne argues the group referred to is evidently the group of companies ultimately owned by the trustee of the Tristan Trust. He says the evidence on which the inspectors' conclusion was based had not been identified and the documents on which the inspectors purported to rely did not justify any such conclusion.
Mr Byrne says that he and members of his immediate families were potential beneficiaries of trusts which were established under the law of Cayman Islands in 1971. He agreed to assist the inspectors in their investigation. In addition to providing statements and documents, he attended for examination under oath on January 24th, 2001, before Judge O'Leary and Mr Rowan.
On October 25th, 2001, the inspectors wrote to Mr Byrne saying they were of the view that the evidence prima facie justified findings and/or inferences that he might consider to be adverse to his interests, good name and/or reputation. They attached a statement setting out preliminary findings. The letter was signed by all four inspectors.
Following correspondence, the secretary to the inspectors wrote last January that the inspectors acknowledged the contents of Mr Byrne's submission and had decided that certain amendments were required.
Mr Byrne says the background to the trusts was set out in detail in documents given to the inspectors.
In brief, John Furze (deceased) was the settlor of the Tristan Trust. Ansbacher was the trustee of the Tristan Settlement and the beneficiaries identified in the settlement were the British Red Cross and/or any contributors to the Cayman branch of the Red Cross.
The trustees owned 100 per cent of Tristan Securities Ltd, a Cayman company, which in turned owned 100 per cent of Danstar Holdings Property, an Australian company, and Intramar Securities, a Cayman company. Sanstar in turned owned 100 per cent of Tepbrook Properties Ltd, a British property company.
It is submitted that Mr Byrne was the settlor of the Prospect settlement and that Ansbacher was the trustee of the Prospect settlement and it owned 100 per cent of Prospect Holdings, a Cayman unlimited company. Prospect Holdings in turn owned 100 per cent of Carlisle Trust Ltd, an Irish company.
Its directors were Mr Byrne and his wife, Ciara, who owned the voting A preference shares and thereby controlled Carlisle Trust. The non-voting B ordinary shares were held by Ansbacher as trustee for Prospect Holdings. Carlisle Trust in turn owned 100 per cent of a number of Irish companies.
Mr Byrne says these trusts were established on the basis of professional legal and financial advice with a view to the legitimate mitigation of estate duties. The trusts were operated by the trustees since their establishment in 1971. Mr Byrne says he was not involved in the operation of the trusts nor did he control them in any way. The trusts were at all times governed by the law of Cayman Islands.
He says the Ansbacher report made a number of conclusions in relation to the trusts. It was not disputed that the trusts were governed by Cayman law. The inspectors, it is submitted, could not validly make any conclusions with regard to the legal status, operation or validity of the trusts or the issue of whether there was a breach of trust without reference to Cayman law.
It is submitted there was no evidence to justify a conclusion that both trusts were operated as one in the interests of Mr Byrne and he was never given an opportunity to respond to it, it is contended.
While a court order of May 25th, 2002, empowered two inspectors to interview Mr Byrne, the other two were precluded from reporting to the court on him 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 by the other inspectors, he says.