Three cheques with a combined value of £180,000 signed by Mr Bernard Dunne in 1992 were lodged to an account held by Carlisle Trust Ltd, it emerged in the High Court yesterday. In a letter signed by the Dunnes Stores group financial controller, Mr Patrick O'Donoghue, it was stated a payment of £100,000 was made to Celtic Helicopters and the balance of £80,000 to Mr Des Traynor.
The details of the cheques were in a letter from Mr O'Donoghue, on January 23rd, 1998, to Mr Gerard Ryan, authorised officer to Guinness & Mahon (Ireland) Ltd, who has since replaced Mr George Moloney as an authorised officer appointed by the Tanaiste and Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Ms Harney, to two Dunnes Stores companies.
The letter was a "practical example" of why Dunnes Stores should be investigated, Mr Eogh an Fitzsimons SC, for Ms Harney, said. He was not saying this was the reason why an authorised officer had been appointed.
He read the letter in court on the third day of a challenge by Dunnes Stores Ireland and Dunnes Stores Ilac Centre Ltd to the officer's appointment to indicate the type of information which had given rise to the appointment of the authorised officer to the Dunnes companies.
In the letter Mr O'Donoghue said he was enclosing copies of cheques drawn on Dunnes Stores Company No 6 account in the Bank of Ireland between November 20th and 27th, 1992. One cheque was for £49,620 payable to cash and signed by Mr Bernard Dunne; the second for £50,962 was also payable to cash and signed by Mr Bernard Dunne; and the third, for £79,418, was also signed by Mr Bernard Dunne.
Mr O'Donoghue wrote that the cheques came to the attention of Dunnes Stores in 1993 as part of a review carried out by the company of the activities of Mr Bernard Dunne. The cheques were lodged to the Bank of Ireland, Rotunda branch, but it had refused to disclose the identity of the holder of the account to which they were lodged. The cheques were not notified to the McCracken tribunal because the identity of the account into which they were paid was not known, he wrote.
In the letter Mr O'Donoghue wrote that in January 1998 Carlisle Trust Ltd had been informed of the inquiry being carried out by Dunnes, which resulted in the payments being disclosed by Carlisle to Dunnes. He said the three cheques were lodged to the account of Carlisle Trust Ltd, Bank of Ireland, Rotunda; £100,000 was paid to Celtic Helicopters and the £80,000 balance to Mr Des Traynor, he wrote.
Mr O'Donoghue concluded the letter by saying that Dunnes Stores had no further information regarding the payments.
Opening the Minister's response to the Dunnes challenge, Mr Fitzsimons said it had been claimed that the appointment of the authorised officer to the two Dunnes companies duplicated other investigations being carried out. That was not the case. This was the first inquiry into the two Dunnes companies.
Mr Fitzsimons said Dunnes had said it was prepared to provide a copy of a Price Waterhouse report on the company's affairs to a tribunal but not to Ms Harney or her officials because confidentiality could not be guaranteed. He rejected that claim totally. Great emphasis had been placed on the fact that Dunnes had co-operated with investigations of other companies.
In appointing an authorised officer, Ms Harney was fulfilling her statutory duty to regulate companies, Mr Fitzsimons said.
A broad assertion had been made that the demand by the authorised officer for production of documents was excessive and unreasonable, but no analysis was attempted to satisfy the court. The fact that Dunnes was given 48 hours to meet the demand was not unreasonable and if the company had sought more time, that might well have been given.
Mr Fitzsimons also argued that the Freedom of Information Act did not apply to companies but provided a facility for private individuals to enable them to gain access to information which they could otherwise not get.
Mr Richard Nesbitt SC, for Dunnes, said Ms Harney was obliged under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act to give reasons for the appointment of the officer and to produce any documents material to the decision. Dunnes had requested reasons and information but neither had been supplied. The Minister and her Department had avoided giving the information which the Freedom of Information Act stipulated should be given. Dunnes was initially told by Ms Harney she could not, under Section 21 of the Companies Act, 1990, disclose the information, and was later simply told she would not give reasons.
On November 10th last Dunnes received a letter from her Department informing it that its request for the information was being handled and a response might be expected within four weeks. Mr Nesbitt said there was no provision in the Act which constituted a ban on the giving of reasons to his clients.
The hearing before Ms Justice Laffoy is expected to end today.
