A former executive director of National Irish Bank "knew nothing" of "the Irish culture of tax evasion" in 1994 when he was "parachuted in" from England to take over at the bank, following the departure in "very acrimonious" circumstances of its chief executive Jim Lacey, the High Court was told yesterday.

The criticism of Barry Seymour by the director of corporate enforcement seemed to be that he had not "turned the Titanic around quickly enough", Michael Collins SC, for Mr Seymour said when opposing an application by the director to have Mr Seymour cross-examined during the hearing next month of proceedings aimed at disqualifying him from involvement in the management of any company.

Mr Seymour (67), Beaumond, Amersham, Buckinghamshire, had put in place corrective measures when he was given internal audit reports [ which found substantial irregularities relating to Dirt-exempt non-resident bank accounts], Mr Collins said.

There had been no finding of dishonesty made against Mr Seymour by the inspectors who investigated the affairs of the bank but he rejected the inferences, criticism and opinions expressed by them regarding his stewardship of the bank.

The court was not rehearing proceedings before the inspectors and there was no need for Mr Seymour to be cross-examined, Mr Collins said. Mr Seymour was retired, living in England and his only business activities were charitable ones for his local Quaker church. The director had failed to give an answer to why he was "pursuing" Mr Seymour.

However, Maurice Collins SC, for the director, said it seemed Michael Collins was making the case that Mr Seymour, the "de facto ceo" of NIB from April 1994 to July 1996, was "a naive person from England where apparently there is no such thing as tax evasion".

While the NIB inspectors had accepted Mr Seymour took remedial measures to address the problems evident from the audit reports, they had not accepted he prosecuted those measures sufficiently vigorously.

Mr Seymour was contending that his assertions about his state of knowledge about practices at the bank were to be taken as conclusive, even though they were inconsistent with the inspectors' findings and documents before the court.

In their report, the inspectors had expressed the opinion that the internal audit reports pointed to the likelihood that certain non-resident accounts were bogus.

Mr Seymour was aware of significant issues of non-compliance and the fact that some 40 per cent of the accounts had something wrong with their paperwork indicated "an endemic problem" which required urgent action.

In circumstances where Mr Seymour took issue with the criticisms made of him by the inspectors, it would be necessary for him to be cross-examined, he argued.

The director wanted to put to Mr Seymour issues regarding his governance of the bank and to explore what he said about his state of knowledge about what was going on at the bank during the 27 months he was there.

Mr Justice Diarmuid O'Donovan said he needed to consider whether to direct Mr Seymour to attend for cross-examination and he would give his decision next week.

The director claims it is evident from the inspectors' report that Mr Seymour inherited a situation where various improper practices prevailed in the bank and that progress was made during his tenure to correct a number of the practices of which he was aware.