Two former senior NIB officials - Mr Patrick Byrne and Mr Barry Seymour - are among those against whom adverse findings have been made in the final report of the inspectors investigating the affairs of National Irish Bank (NIB), it emerged at the High Court yesterday. Mr Byrne is a former head of finance with NIB while Mr Seymour is a former chief executive of the bank.

When dealing with applications regarding the report, Mr Justice Kelly also heard that adverse findings had been made against Ms Beverley Flynn, a former Fianna Fáil TD who worked with NIB for a period, in the inspectors' draft report. However, it was not indicated whether adverse findings against Ms Flynn are set out in the final report.

The court further heard that Mr Pat O'Donovan is seeking an advance copy of the report in pursuit of legal proceedings against NIB. Counsel for Mr O'Donovan said his client was alleging monies had been misappropriated from his accounts between 1989 and 1996 and wanted the report published in full.

The Revenue Commissioners, who also want a complete copy of the report, are conducting their own investigation into customers of NIB and National Irish Banks Financial Services Limited (NIBFSL) with 288 cases concluded and 47 outstanding.

Mr Justice Kelly will rule tomorrow on a range of issues, including whether the report of the six-year investigation by inspectors Mr John Blayney and Mr Tom Grace into the affairs of NIB and NIBFSL should be published in its entirety or with parts edited out.

Any publication will not be before 10 a.m. on July 30th.

The report was presented to the court on July 12th and a copy was also given, on an undertaking of confidentiality, to the Director of Corporate Enforcement (DCE). Both the judge and the DCE have read the report but it has not been made available to any other party.

The DCE has asked the judge to give copies of the report to the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Revenue Commissioners and various regulatory authorities in Ireland, the UK, the US, New Zealand and Australia. He has also recommended it be published in its entirety.

NIB, the court was told by Mr Richard Nesbitt SC, was anxious that the costs of the inspectors' investigation "should not be visited on the taxpayer". Mr Justice Kelly said he understood that meant the legal costs orders would be made at the highest level of costs.

Before the court yesterday was an application by Mr Donal O'Donnell SC, for the inspectors, for directions on matters arising from completion of the report. Other applications for copies of the report prior to any publication were also heard.

The parties represented at the hearing were the inspectors, the director, the Central Bank and Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority (IFSRA), the Revenue Commissioners, Ms Flynn, Mr Seymour, Mr Byrne and Mr O'Donovan.

The judge heard applications by NIB, NIBFSL, the Central Bank and IFSRA, Mr Byrne, Mr Seymour, Ms Flynn and Mr O'Donovan for copies of the report to be given to them prior to publication. He will rule on those tomorrow.

Mr Nesbitt said the bank required a copy of the final report in order to be able to respond quickly to it and to give directions to its staff.

The bank also favoured the report being published in full and it being made available to the Central Bank, IFSRA and various regulatory authorities abroad. It had no objection to the report being given to the Revenue and was prepared to ensure the taxpayer would not have to bear the costs of the investigation.

Mr Brian Murray SC, for the DCE, said it believed NIB was entitled to a copy of the report but it was for the court to decide whether the bank got that prior to general publication. If it did get an advance copy, that should only be for as long as necessary to address the matters in the report and should be subject to the strictest conditions of confidentiality.

The DCE also believed the report should go to persons named in it, the NIB auditors, the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, the parent company of NIB, the Revenue, regulatory authorities here and abroad and another party which Mr Murray said he was not naming in open court in consideration of the report's continuing confidentiality at this time.

A solicitor for Ms Flynn said draft adverse findings had been made against her client in January 2002 and Ms Flynn had made submissions on those.

Ms Flynn was seeking a copy of the final report and believed she should get that in advance of general publication.

Ms Flynn was making no submissions in relation to redaction or general publication of the final report.

A solicitor for Mr Byrne and Mr Seymour said preliminary adverse findings were made against his clients and they had made oral and written submissions.

They did not know what was in the final report and, if they were named in it, wanted copies prior to publication and an opportunity to consider whether they wished to apply to have parts redacted.

The judge refused the solicitor's application to adjourn consideration of whether the report should be published in order to allow the two men to read the final report and decide whether they should make applications to have parts redacted.

Mr Justice Kelly said that, in relation to Mr Byrne and Mr Seymour, he could confirm that adverse findings had been made in the final report.

He said the solicitor's application was unique and would be refused because his clients had already seen the draft findings and had had an opportunity to make submissions on those. The court could perceive no injustice to the two men.

Counsel for Mr Pat O'Donovan said his client was claiming monies were misappropriated from his bank accounts between 1987 and 1996 and believed the report should be published unedited.

Mr O'Donnell, for the inspectors, said they believed it was entirely desirable in the public interest that the report should be published unredacted. The affected parties had seen the draft findings and had had an opportunity to make submissions regarding redaction insofar as the report related to them. "They know the worst it can hold," he said.

The inspectors also objected to the report being delivered to those parties prior to publication but if there was to be such delivery, it should be under terms of strict confidentiality.

Referring to powers under the Companies Act for the court to make a winding up order for NIB and NIBFSL, the judge asked the parties for their views. He heard the DCE was not making any such application, that the Central Bank and IFSRA regarded any such move as not in the best interests of consumers or the banking industry and the inspectors were also not advocating such a course.

Mr Nesbitt, for NIB, said any such winding up order would be wholly inappropriate. The bank was trading successfully, had 700 employees, was an integral part of the commerce of the State, had 165,000 customers and assets of €3.75 billion.

On a further issue, Mr O'Donnell said the inspectors also required the court to direct what should happen to three categories of documents: documents from the bank and third parties; transcripts of interviews done by the inspectrors; and the inspectors' working paper.

The inspectors were recommending that these be held in the offices of PricewaterhouseCoopers for a period of three years after which they would be destroyed unless applications were made regarding them.

Applications for access to the documents could be made to the court.

The final issue discussed was the costs of the inspectorate, including legal costs.

Mr Nesbitt indicated the bank did not want the costs visited on the taxpayer.

Mr Justice Kelly said he would rule on all the issues at 2 p.m. tomorrow.