Harney affidavit handed to High Court chief registrar

The reasons why the Tanaiste, Ms Harney, decided to appoint an authorised officer to two Dunnes Stores companies were handed to the chief registrar of the High Court yesterday.

The confidential affadavit will now be passed on to a solicitor acting for Dunnes Stores, who will in turn pass it to the directors of the two companies. The Tanaiste has given an undertaking that the authorised officer, Mr Gerard Ryan, will not serve an order for documentation on the companies for another two weeks, in order to give the group time to consider its contents.

The group's legal advisers will study the document to see if there are grounds for seeking a judicial review of the decision. Two weeks ago the High Court said the company was entitled the know the reasons for the Tanaiste's decision, but rejected an application that the appointment be quoshed.

The companies concerned are Dunnes Stores (Ilac) Ltd and Dunnes Stores Ireland , the latter being the group's flagship company in this jurisdiction. During the High Court hearing, the court heard of payments by the former managing director of Dunnes, Mr Ben Dunne, which had "characteristics" similar to the payments examined by the McCracken tribunal.

These payments have now been brought to the attention of the Moriarty tribunal. Among the issues which are likely to be considered by that tribunal are the timing of the payments, two of which seem to fall outside the scheme of events outlined to the McCracken tribunal.

According to the McCracken report, "some time late in 1987 and probably in early or mid November of that year" the late Des Traynor contacted accountant Mr Noel Fox and told him Mr Haughey was in need of funds. The payments examined by the McCracken tribunal, totalling some £1.3 million, were then paid out over the following five years.

However, some of the payments detailed in the High Court last week were made before late 1987. A sum of £30,000 was paid out by Mr Dunne in January 1987. A second payment, of £282,500 sterling, was paid out of Dunnes Stores (Bangor) in May 1987 and went to an account in the name of Tripleplan, a British company now dissolved. The company's directors included Mr John Collins and the late John Furze, two Cayman Islands bankers linked to the Ansbacher deposits.

The reasons for these payments and how they came about are not known. After Mr Dunne's departure from his executive role with Dunnes Stores in 1993 and the initiation of legal action by him, a report was drafted on behalf of the group by Price Waterhouse, in relation to certain bank accounts.

Mr Dunne had caused funds to be transferred to these accounts, which were outside the normal books and records of the group. He operated the accounts without the knowledge or consent of the other members of the board.

Mr Justice Gerard Buchanan examined the Price Waterhouse report for the Government in 1997, following the resignation of the former Fine Gael minister, Mr Michael Lowry, for evidence of payments to politicians. He reported that the major proportion of the payments, made from the accounts examined in the report, were by way of cheques made out to cash or to bearer, or were paid to credit card accounts. The total involved was £5.633 million.

According to Mr Justice Buchanan's report, of this money 18 per cent (£1 million) was to persons who were not relevant to his inquiry. A further 19 per cent went to "other identified or alleged beneficiaries". The remaining 63 per cent (£3.5 million) were "payments where the beneficiary cannot be determined".

It is known from the McCracken tribunal that some £1.3 million went to Mr Haughey. Mr Lowry received some £40,000 from an account in Marino, Dublin, and £105,000 sterling from an account in the Isle of Man. Additional payments totalling a further £500,000 approximately, were detailed in the High Court two weeks ago.

It is likely that, among the documents which will be sought by the authorised officer from Dunnes, will be the Price Waterhouse report. The group, however, is likely to challenge the order, on the basis that the report was drafted in the context of litigation and is covered by legal privilege.