National Irish Bank (NIB) offers financial assistance towards the legal costs of employees who are interviewed by inspectors investigating the bank - on condition the employees hand over transcripts of their interview to the bank. Mr Richard Nesbitt SC, for NIB, was clarifying the bank's position regarding financial aid for employees facing interview, on the final day of the hearing of an application by the bank and its subsidiary, National Irish Bank Financial Services Ltd, regarding aspects of the inspectors' investigation.

The two companies have asked the court for orders restricting aspects of the inspectors' investigation into the banks' compliance with DIRT and directing inspectors Mr Tom Grace and Mr John Blayney to hand over transcripts of interviews conducted with its employees, former employees and customers. The application was resisted by the inspectors and by the Tanaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Ms Harney.

The three-day hearing concluded yesterday and judgment was reserved. Mr Justice Peter Kelly said he hoped to deliver his decision as soon as possible.

In legal submissions yesterday, Mr Donal O'Donnell SC, for the inspectors, said there was no basis on which NIB could contend it was entitled at this stage to transcripts of interviews conducted by the inspectors. The bank would get the transcripts if circumstances arose where the bank had to defend itself.

The role of the inspectors was principally inquisitorial and they were obliged to observe, and were observing, fair procedures. They were at present engaged in information gathering. When they moved to the next stage of their investigation, the bank would have the full panoply of rights determined by the Supreme Court.

If the bank succeeded in its application, the investigation would become primarily adversarial and the whole process would become unmanageable, counsel said.

Mr O'Donnell said the criticism by the bank of the inspectors was unjustified and unsustainable and there was no basis for the contention that the inspectors had formed the view that allegations against the bank had been sustained. Replying, Mr Nesbitt said the bank was entitled to transcripts of its employees' evidence to the inspectors under High Court approved procedures for the inspectors' investigation. He argued the inspectors had departed from those procedures.

Dealing with the bank's application to prevent "duplication" between the inspectors' investigation and the separate investigation by the Comptroller and Auditor General into compliance of financial institutions with DIRT, Mr Nesbitt said the argument advanced by NIB that it was "unnecessary, wasteful and time consuming" to have DIRT compliance investigated by the inspectors and the Comptroller had not been disputed. He disagreed that NIB was not suffering any prejudice as a result of duplication.