Lawyers for the Revenue Commissioners have asked the High Court for additional documents gathered by the inspectors into Ansbacher Cayman but not included in their published report. The documents sought would be "of immeasurable assistance" to the Revenue in its investigations into identified Ansbacher clients and establishing the identity of other Ansbacher clients, a senior Revenue inspector said.

The President of the High Court, Mr Justice Finnegan, yesterday dealt with several applications arising from the publication last month of the Ansbacher report. After hearing submissions on the applications, he adjourned them for mention on Monday next with a view to issuing directions aimed at having the matters fully heard in October.

When outlining the Revenue's motion, Mr James Connolly SC read an affidavit by Mr Donnchadh MacCarthaigh, a principal inspector of taxes in the Special Projects Team, Investigation Branch, of the Revenue.

He noted the inspectors' report had concluded there was evidence tending to show the affairs of Ansbacher were conducted with intent to defraud a creditor of some of its clients - the Revenue authorities.

Mr MacCarthaigh said the Revenue Special Projects Team was set up to investigate Ansbacher and related accounts and to recover taxes evaded through the operation of those accounts. It would be of immeasurable assistance to the Revenue investigation if a copy of the remaining documents held by the inspectors were given to the Revenue, he said.

The Revenue has already successfully applied to the High Court under the Tax Acts for orders against Guinness & Mahon (Ireland) Limited, Irish Intercontinental Bank Limited and against Mr Padraig Collery, who was referred to in the Ansbacher report.

On foot of those orders, the Revenue had received some 15,000 documents, which had enabled it to discover a substantial number of persons or entities (other than those included in the list of names in the report) that had dealings with Ansbacher Cayman Ltd and the bank's previous names. There were still a number of codes and Ansbacher accounts whose beneficial ownership had to be established.

Mr Gordon, for Ansbacher Cayman, said he took the view the court had no jurisdiction to make the order sought by the Revenue.

Mr Shane Murphy SC, for the inspectors, said they had concerns about the Revenue's application. They believed it raised matters affecting the public interest and the proper person to address such concerns was the Attorney General.

In an affidavit, Ms Noreen Mackey, one of the inspectors, said that some parties, in furnishing documents to the inspectors, did so on the understanding their affairs would only be disclosed to the extent necessary for investigating and reporting on the Ansbacher affairs. In many instances, there was "more than an implied understanding as to confidentiality" and, at the request of several parties, the inspectors undertook not to disclose material except for the functions for which they were mandated by the court.

To disclose information beyond that contained in the report would breach that confidentiality understanding/obligation, especially in relation to persons whose cases were ultimately found to fall outside the terms of reference of the investigation.

Ms Mackey said there were potential public policy issues to be addressed in the Revenue's application, including whether future investigations and inquiries might be affected if persons believed confidential information that was deemed unnecessary for inclusion in an inspector's report could nonetheless be disclosed to third parties.

Mr Feichin McDonagh SC, for the Attorney General, said he was representing the public interest and would not be opposing the Revenue application. The Attorney took the view it was in the public interest to give the documents to the Revenue. If the inspectors had concerns, they were in a position to raise these.

However, after the judge raised some queries in relation to the court's jurisdiction and the matters raised by the inspectors, Mr McDonagh said he wanted to take further instructions from the Attorney on the issues raised.

Mr Justice Finnegan said there were broader public policy issues involved that the Attorney might be better qualified to deal with than the inspectors. He adjourned all the matters to Monday next.