A number of representations from people due to be named as customers of Ansbacher Cayman are expected when the High Court sits to consider publication of the Ansbacher report on Monday.
The President of the High Court, Mr Justice Finnegan, may also have to decide whether people not represented in court on Monday should be notified and invited to make representations to the court.
A number of informed sources have said they do not expect publication of the report to be authorised on Monday. They say that, depending on how the matter develops, publication of the report could be weeks or even months away. They say no one can know what will happen next until the arguments, due to be made on Monday, are heard.
The report, which is 10,000 pages long if schedules and appendices are included, was presented to the President of the High Court by the inspectors two weeks ago. The inspectors indicated to the court through their counsel that some people due to be named in the report had expressed a desire to make representations to the court before its publication. It is understood these people's names were indicated to Mr Justice Finnegan.
One legal source, who represents persons who wish to make representations to the court, said he knew of three other legal teams representing people due to be named. In all, he said, he believed more than 10 people were represented by these four legal teams, and there could be more legal representatives involved whom he did not know about. Legal teams have been making inquiries of each other about the possibility of a joint application to the court.
Another senior source said he expected a "significant" number of representations to be made to the court on behalf of people due to be named. The people involved are understood to include those who believe they should not be mentioned in the report at all and others who are concerned about the nature of the findings that may have been made about them. Sources emphasised that the whole scenario is uncharted waters for the courts. They said one possibility was that people due to be named would be given a copy of the report, or those sections which concerned them, in order that they could give consideration to making an application.
An immediate issue is whether anyone will be able to make any sort of application before Mr Justice Finnegan without first identifying who they are. In April, the President referred a case that involved this exact subject to Mr Justice McCracken.
Mr Justice McCracken found that, because justice must be administered in public, the applicants before him, who are due to be named in the Ansbacher report, would have to be named before they could make their application. Following the ruling the two unnamed individuals withdrew their application. The ruling is not binding on Mr Justice Finnegan.
The Tánaiste, Ms Harney, and the Director of Corporate Enforcement, Mr Paul Appleby, who were given copies of the report two weeks ago, have stated their intention to call for the early publication of the full report.
Ansbacher Cayman Ltd, the Cayman Islands bank at the centre of the report, is expected to seek a copy of the report on Monday and ask for time to read it so it might consider making submissions in relation to its publication.
The inspectors were appointed by the High Court in September 1999. They were asked to inquire into the activities of Ansbacher and to name its customers.
