Any Irish residents who had connections with the Ansbacher deposits but who have not yet been identified by the Irish authorities, will have breathed a sigh of relief yesterday.

In a 48-page ruling delivered at around 6 p.m. Irish time, the Hon Mr Justice Anthony Smellie, chief justice of the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands, decided against allowing a complete disclosure to the Irish High Court inspectors.

The inspectors are understood to have wanted large amounts of information about all of the Irish clients of Ansbacher Cayman and the bank had gone to the court seeking permission to do so. The inspectors already know the identities of more than 100 Irish residents who had links with the deposits, and perhaps many more. But there is the possibility that some names are still not known to them and if a full disclosure had been made then these people would be facing eventual public disclosure.

For those whose affairs are already known to the inspectors, yesterday's ruling is on the face of it unwelcome. The bank is now to disclose information about accounts but without any names and addresses attached. It may be the case that the inspectors will be able to match information received with information they already have, and thereby work out who the new information should be associated with.

The inspectors may not be able fully to assess the value or otherwise of the ruling, until they begin to receive information from Ansbacher.

The coded manner in which Mr Justice Smellie ruled the information should be supplied to the inspectors, with identities on documents being replaced with alphabetical letters, numbers or symbols, bears an ironic resemblance to the secretive coded "memorandum accounts" the late Mr Des Traynor used to keep in Dublin when monitoring the affairs of his Irish clients.

The inspectors will not be the only people closely studying the judgement. It is open to the parties which objected to Ansbacher disclosing information to seek to appeal the ruling.

There were three objectors: Hamilton Ross Co Ltd, Poinciana Fund Ltd, and other clients of Ansbacher. Hamilton Ross and Poinciana are Cayman trust companies which did business with Irish clients and with Ansbacher.

The principal reason they made objections to the Ansbacher application was that the trust companies did not want fresh financial details concerning their clients getting into the hands of the Irish authorities at a time when many of these clients were in negotiations with the Revenue. The main category involved, according to informed sources, is beneficiaries of trusts established by people who had funds in the deposits. The objectors will study the judgment with a view to deciding whether they should seek to appeal. Any appeal goes to a three-judge court in the Cayman Islands. If that court's decision is appealed, the matter is heard by the Privy Council in London.

Ansbacher Bank may also wish to appeal. Yesterday's lengthy judgment outlines some of the arguments made by both sides during the lengthy in-camera hearing, including the reason Ansbacher gave for making the application in the first place.

The bank felt it was not obliged to co-operate but "there are serious reputational and other business risks arising from an adverse report which Ansbacher wishes to avoid". Counsel for the bank also argued that a "considerable number of clients would not object" though no instances of such clients were offered.

The objectors argued strongly that the bank should not be allowed seek to obtain "a collateral advantage for itself vis-a-vis its clients". It should not be allowed "throw its clients to the wolves".

They argued that what was involved was a general trawling or fishing exercise where the confidential financial details of hitherto unidentified persons would be handed over without any proof or even allegation of wrongdoing being offered.

The bank was strong in its argument that it had not acted illegally in this jurisdiction. "Notwithstanding the consistent theme of different inquiries alleging or suggesting that Ansbacher through its former chief executive Desmond Traynor assisted clients to defraud the Irish Revenue; Ansbacher denies this.

"Its position is that its business was always conducted properly through its parent (Guinness & Mahon) and corespondent banks in Ireland and that it did not itself carry on banking business in Ireland.

"The Irish clients with whom it conducted only legitimate business, were its clients as a Cayman Islands bank carrying on business as such. This was notwithstanding that it may have maintained deposit accounts, involving their monies, with its parent bank in Ireland." There was nothing "covert" about its arrangements with its parent bank, Ansbacher said.

Fulltext of the Cayman High Court ruling is available on www.ireland.com