COURT REPORT:PROPERTY DEVELOPER Patrick McKillen's unprecedented demand for privacy and confidentiality about his financial affairs cannot be granted, the High Court in London has ruled.

Finding against Mr McKillen on all grounds, Mr Justice David Richards said Mr McKillen’s application “comes nowhere near” the standards required for such an order to be made.

He took the unusual step of ordering that he pay a sum on account to cover the costs incurred by the defendants in challenging the application, along with those of the press.

However, the decision delivered against Mr McKillen does not mean that all of the details surrounding his financial affairs will be put into the public arena.

But it does mean that all of the case, which is scheduled to last until June, will be heard in public, because, the judge said, of the need for justice to be carried out in public.

During the pre-trial hearings in the case, the judge ruled that a “confidentiality club” should be created of lawyers entitled to probe the documentation lodged by the Belfast developer.

However, the information could not be shared with their clients by legal teams representing Derek Quinlan; the billionaire Barclay brothers, David and Frederick, and directors they had appointed to Coroin, the holding company for their hotel group, which is at the centre of the dispute.

Mr McKillen wanted those restrictions to last for the full duration of the trial, an outcome which would, if granted, have made it impossible for the defendants properly to instruct their legal teams.

The demand for confidentiality was challenged both by the defendants, and a group of newspapers, including The Irish Times and the Irish Independent. The others involved were the Financial Times, the Guardian and the London Times, while RTÉ supported a written application made by the Press Association news agency.

Ruling against Mr McKillen, Mr Justice Richards said information does not become “private” just because he, unusually, does some of his business in his own name, rather than using a company.

However, despite the ruling, some of the details of Mr McKillen’s affairs to be heard in the weeks ahead will not be given in detail in court. Instead, barristers will refer the judge to documents.

Responding to barristers for the defendants, the judge accepted their arguments that Mr McKillen should pay the costs of all sides incurred in dealing with the application.

Not only that, but Mr McKillen should pay a sum on account; while, even more unusually, the judge ruled that the press should have its costs paid as well.

An indication of the costs involved was given by Joe Smouha QC, who represents three of Coroin’s independent directors, who said his side’s legal bill alone comes to £92,000.

The awarding of costs against Mr McKillen was appropriate, said Mr Smouha, who was supported by Lord Grabiner, representing the Barclay brothers personally.

“What we are concerned about is that the pattern is one of making applications which are in effect road-tested at considerable expenditure of time and money, putting your lordship to a great deal of trouble, to see, as it were, Micawber-like, whether they might attract some favour from your lordship – and then they disappear,” said Mr Smouha.

Opposing the decision to award the costs of the press, Mr McKillen’s barrister, Philip Marshall, said: “We did not of course join the press to the proceedings, nor did we invite their attendance. They have attended voluntarily.”

However, Mr Justice Richards said that the press had attended because he, the judge, had “said that they should be given notification”.

In particular, he paid tribute to Victoria Jolliffe QC, representing the newspapers, for the assistance that she had shown during her presentation to the court. She had argued that the cross-examination of witnesses “is often key to the public’s understanding of the court’s assessment” of the evidence.

Mr Justice Richards also dismissed Mr McKillen’s allegations that the Barclay brothers, with the assistance of Mr Quinlan, would use information about him to put pressure on his lenders to abandon him.

Despite the ruling, some of the details of Mr McKillen’s affairs will not be given in detail