A COURT in the Cayman Islands has refused an application from the Tribunal of Inquiry (Dunnes Payments) that it be allowed take evidence there. The tribunal is likely to appeal the decision.
The court ruled the tribunal was not a court or tribunal for the purposes of Cayman law. The court had reserved its decision, on May 29th last, following a three-day hearing.
An appeal could be heard in November at the earliest depending on the court lists in the Cayman Islands, according to Mr Charles Quin, of Quin and Hampson, the Cayman legal firm engaged by the tribunal.
The tribunal had made an application that a number of witnesses and the Cayman Islands bank, Ansbacher Ltd, be compelled to give evidence. One of the individuals concerned, Mr John Furze, a former managing director of Ansbacher, opposed the application.
His legal team argued that the tribunal was not a proper tribunal for the purposes of Cayman law and that it was not involved in a civil action in Dublin. The judge agreed with the first of these points. On the second point the judge would seem to have ruled in the tribunal's favour. He found that if the tribunal had been classified as a court or tribunal, then the proceedings before it would be civil proceedings.
There are strict laws governing the confidentiality of financial information held in the Cayman Islands, and disclosure without the permission of the courts is an offence. Applications similar to that by the tribunal have been refused before.
The High Court of England and Wales, in London, granted an application from the tribunal some months ago. Evidence was heard from bankers there.
The tribunal team is now considering the Cayman decision. Advances made by the team in following the trail left by the Dunnes payments have meant the Cayman evidence is not as crucial as had hitherto been the case.
The tribunal was told by Mr Denis McCullough SC on Monday that information held in the Cayman Islands mirrored details held in Dublin as to who owned money held in the so-called "Ansbacher deposits".
These deposits were all held in a bank account or accounts where money from different individuals was "intermingled". The information on who owned the money in the accounts was in coded memoranda held by the late Mr Des Traynor.
The tribunal was told money from the Dunnes payments was paid into these "Ansbacher deposits". It was also told evidence would be heard that money from the deposits was sent to Dublin accountants, who paid off expenses incurred by Mr Charles Haughey.
It is understood memoranda which contain details of payments made into the deposits for Mr Haughey may be held in the Cayman Islands.
The chairman of the tribunal, Mr Justice McCracken, tribunal barristers, Mr McCullough SC, Mr Michael Collins SC, and solicitor to the tribunal, Mr John Lawless, travelled to the Cayman Islands to make their application.
It was as an indirect consequence of the tribunal's work in the Cayman Islands that it obtained information, back in Ireland, concerning the "regular and substantial" payments made to accountants and used for living expenses incurred by Mr Haughey.
