The current affairs magazine Magill is standing over the "essential truth" of an article in its current issue about the Tánaiste, Ms Harney, and the Flood tribunal, the High Court was told yesterday.
While it was true to say no formal order had been made by the tribunal, a formal written request has been made to Ms Harney seeking a written statement of her financial affairs, Mr Eoin McCullough SC, for Magill, said.
Mr Sean Ryan SC, for Ms Harney, said Mr McCullough's assertion was in dispute.
Proceedings initiated on Wednesday by Ms Harney against Magill and a number of defendants, arising from publication of the article, came before Mr Justice McCracken yesterday afternoon.
On Wednesday, the judge gave leave to lawyers for Ms Harney to serve notice on the defendants that they intended to seek an injunction yesterday to prevent publication of alleged defamatory material in Magill. Yesterday, it was stated on behalf of Magill that the article was not defamatory.
Mr Justice McCracken was told most copies of the magazine had been distributed at this stage. Following submissions and a 30-minute adjournment, the proceedings were adjourned generally.
Mr Sean Ryan SC, for Ms Harney, said it had been indicated that Magill did not intend to publish or reprint further copies of the article. That being so, unless he was to seek an order to do the impossible and "face down" every copy of the magazine, and, not having anything to proceed against, there was no injunction he could seek at this time.
The Magill side accepted that no formal order had been made by the tribunal, Mr Ryan said. They said a request had been made. Ms Harney disputed that, as had been seen in an affidavit presented on Wednesday.
In case there was any confusion, his side had never sought from the Flood tribunal any information about who, what or why it was investigating. They knew what they would have been told if they did so.
What a solicitor for the tribunal had confirmed was that no order of any kind had been served on Ms Harney.
Mr Ryan said the appropriate step was to adjourn the proceedings generally and reserve costs, pending the hearing of the full action. The judge said that would keep the matter alive.
Mr Ryan replied: "Just in case." Mr McCullough agreed that was the appropriate action to take. The magazine had printed and distributed its entire print run of 30,000 copies.
In the affidavit presented on behalf of Ms Harney to the court on Wednesday, solicitor Mr Walter Beatty said his client had not been served with an order from the tribunal. The tribunal had not instigated any investigation against her. And so, before the institution of the proceedings, he had contacted the solicitor for the tribunal and she had confirmed, on the record, no such order had been made.
At the start of yesterday's hearing, Mr John Gordon SC, for Eason (Wholesale) Ltd, a defendant, said the magazine had been distributed largely in his clients' premises, but not in Cork. They had managed to halt distribution in Cork. They were happy to withdraw the publication from their own shops but that was as far as they could go.
Mr Roddy Horan, for Newspread, also a defendant, said his clients had taken delivery of 14,800 copies and started distribution on Wednesday morning.He said 14,699 copies had been distributed to 2,013 newsagents. There was no difficulty in abiding by any order but it seemed "the horse has well and truly bolted". His clients had less than 200 copies in their warehouse and would not distribute these.