The High Court today rejected a bid by the Attorney General and Director of Corporate Enforcement to have the identities disclosed of two persons 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", Mr Michael Collins SC, for the two, complained.
Earlier this week, the two individuals lost their legal bid to remain anonymous in their proceedings which were initiated in the name of a firm of solicitors representing the two individuals.
After Mr Justice McCracken ruled on Wednesday that he had no jurisdiction to hear in camera the applicant’s application for their proceedings to be heard in camera, the case was adjourned to allow time for the decision to be considered by the sides.
When Mr Justice McCracken 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 two individuals on whose behalf the case was taken.
But after hearing submissions from counsel for all sides, the judge refused the application.
At the very beginning of the proceedings, 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.
He said he was surprised at yesterday’s application.
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, a motion to the Supreme Court would have to be issued in the names of his clients. They were taking instructions in relation to an appeal.
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 which was of public interest.
However, 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. The report is almost complete and is expected to be presented to the High Court soon.
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, 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 Feicin 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 inconsistent with the judgment and would be a grave disservice to the administration of justice.
Replying, Mr Michael Collins SC said the report had been kept secret. His original application was only to see the report. It was surprising that the Director should make the present application and that the Attorney General should support it was even more surprising.
There was a touch of "political voyeurism" in the situation.