Dunnes Stores is attempting to thwart an investigation of two of its companies, it was claimed on behalf of Tanaiste and Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Ms Harney, at the High Court yesterday.
But counsel for Dunnes Stores, Mr Ben O Floinn, said he took grave exception to the attempt by Mr Eoghan Fitzsimons SC, for Ms Harney, to characterise his client in that way.
Mr O Floinn also described as outrageous a request from Mr Fitzsimons for an undertaking that any documents relevant to the proceedings should not be destroyed.
Mr Justice Kearns fixed April 13th for the hearing of an application by Dunnes Stores for an order prohibiting Mr Gerard Ryan from acting as an authorised officer to investigate Dunnes Stores (Ireland) Company and Dunnes Stores (ILAC Centre) Ltd. He said it was imperative the matter get an early hearing.
The judge said he would not ask Dunnes for an undertaking regarding documents, saying it would be inconceivable that any client would consider such an option. Mr Fitzsimons said the application to quash the Minister's order appointing Mr Ryan had been brought on behalf of Dunnes Stores in order to thwart the investigation. When Mr Justice Kearns said "thwart" was a very strong word, Mr Fitzsimons said he used it because the Minister had appointed inspectors as far back as last July and Dunnes Stores had brought legal proceedings which were heard by Ms Justice Laffoy who gave a 50-page judgment.
Dunnes Stores had raised objections to the appointment of Mr Ryan and some of the grounds on which its objections were based had been raised before Ms Justice Laffoy, counsel said.
He said the conduct of Dunnes Stores was consistent with an attempt to frustrate the efforts of the inspector to investigate. Ms Harney was anxious to get an early date for the hearing of Dunnes Stores objections, he added.
Mr O Floinn said Ms Justice Laffoy held that Dunnes was entitled to be told the reasons for the Minister's appointment of an authorised officer.
Counsel said the present application by Dunnes was not an attempt to thwart the Minister. The company was now in possession of reasons for the officer's appointment and was challenging that appointment.
Mr Fitzsimons said he did not accept Mr O Floinn's characterisation of Ms Justice Laffoy's judgment as being in favour of Dunnes Stores.
The court would be aware that many professional and commercial firms had a policy of destroying documents which were a number of years old, counsel added. He did not know, but perhaps Dunnes Stores had such a policy. If it did, he was seeking an undertaking from the company that documents relevant to the present proceedings, including those requested from Dunnes, should not be destroyed.
