The Revenue is to get access to a large amount of confidential information accumulated by the Ansbacher Bank inspectors.

Yesterday's ruling by the High Court means that the Revenue may have access to certain documents and information that was gathered by the inspectors who investigated the affairs of the bank, but was not included in the inspectors' report.

The documents in question must relate only to clients of Ansbacher or to persons and companies (including individual board members of those companies) who failed to co-operate with the inspectors' inquiry, the President of the High Court, Mr Justice Finnegan, held.

He said the Revenue could make an application at a later date with a view to obtaining information and documents relating to any other individual or company. However, it would have to name those individuals and companies in its application and set out sufficient information to satisfy the court that the order sought related to matters arising from the inspectors' report.

In its application, the Revenue had sought access to and copies of all documents related to the inspectors' report but not contained in the report.

The application by the Revenue had been opposed by Ansbacher and the inspectors, but supported by the Attorney General.

One of the inspectors, Ms Noreen Mackey, had said any disclosure of information would breach an understanding or obligation of confidentiality, and the inspectors also had concerns about the effect of the Revenue's application on future inquiries.

In his reserved judgment, Mr Justice Finnegan said the Revenue was involved in the collection and assessment of taxes and had suffered a disability in that the affairs of Ansbacher Cayman were conducted in a manner that disabled the Revenue from that task.

"I am satisfied that the public interest in the assessment and collection of taxes outweighs the contractual right to confidentiality and the constitutional right to privacy of the individuals and companies mentioned in the report," he said.

He added that any understanding or undertaking as to confidentiality given by the inspectors, while a factor to be taken into account in the exercise of the court's discretion, should not in the circumstances of the case prevent him from making the order of disclosure.

"If these individuals and companies have been tax-compliant, they will suffer no disadvantage," he said. "If they were not, they will suffer no injustice in discharging their proper liabilities."

The Revenue application was brought under Section 12 of the Companies Act 1990, which gives the High Court a discretion to remedy a disability suffered by any person as a result of the manner in which affairs were conducted by a particular company under investigation.

Mr Justice Finnegan said the Revenue special projects team was set up to investigate Ansbacher and related accounts and to recover taxes evaded through the operation of such accounts.

Mr Donnchadh MacCarthaigh, an inspector with that team, had set out in an affidavit his belief that many Ansbacher account holders were taxpayers who failed to comply with the provisions of the taxes Acts and that it would be of assistance to the Revenue if it had the remaining documents in the inspectors' possession.

Such documents included correspondence with individuals, companies, bank statements and other miscellaneous documents not included in the inspectors' report.

The judge said that insofar as information was given to the inspectors either involuntarily or on foot of an express or implied undertaking as to confidentiality, he was satisfied this did not circumscribe the court's power to make an order of disclosure.