The Magill magazine allegation that the Tánaiste, Ms Harney, has been ordered by the Flood tribunal to make extensive disclosure of her financial records is "absolutely untrue", her lawyers told the High Court.
The tribunal's solicitor had also confirmed the allegation was untrue, Mr Justice McCracken was told yesterday.
The judge gave leave to lawyers for Ms Harney, who was not in court, to serve notice on the defendants of their intention to seek an injunction at 2 p.m. today. This was to prevent publication of the alleged defamatory material in Magill. Defamation proceedings are also being issued.
The defendants were named as Grosvenor Publications Ltd, publishers of Magill; Smurfit Web Press Ltd; Michael Hogan; Mari Therese O'Leary; Easons (Wholesale) Ltd and Newspread Ltd.
Mr Hogan and Ms O'Leary were stated in an affidavit by a solicitor for Ms Harney to be directors of Hoson Publishing Ltd, a dissolved company. It appeared to own copyright of the article and so, it was stated, must have endorsed its publication.
Mr Seán Ryan SC, for Ms Harney, said the essence of the article was that she had been served with an order by the Flood tribunal requiring her to swear an affidavit dealing with certain financial transactions. That was not only completely untrue but had been confirmed by the solicitor to the tribunal as being untrue.
Mr Ryan said not only had the article been published but it had also been advertised on RTÉ. Mr Justice McCracken said he had heard the ad himself.
In an affidavit, Mr Walter Beatty, solicitor for Ms Harney, said the front cover of Magill featured the words: "Trouble seems to follow me everywhere. The Harney files: The unanswered questions." These were accompanied by a photograph of Ms Harney.
What supported those assertions was the statement, made in the first paragraph of the article, that Ms Harney had been ordered by the tribunal to make extensive disclosure of her financial records. That statement was absolutely untrue and acknowledged by the tribunal's solicitor, Ms Máire Anne Howard, to be untrue.
It was that contention Ms Harney wished to restrain. She also believed the balance of the article should be restrained as it was defamatory and untruthful.
Mr Beatty said Ms Harney had not been served with an order from the Flood tribunal and it had not instigated any investigation against her. She was asserting that people who read the article would believe she was under investigation by the tribunal and not a worthy person for election to Dáil Éireann or a suitable candidate for public office.
Furthermore, the Progressive Democrats would be associated with the allegations, thereby reducing their electoral success.
The publication had attracted considerable media and public attention. The defendants had continued distribution of the defamatory material.
Mr Beatty said NewsTalk 106FM reported the article and said its author, Sandra Mara, had confirmed the contents and said any proceedings by Ms Harney would be "vigorously defended".
Ms Harney, who is currently canvassing, was extremely upset and distressed at the article. She was concerned that if the defendants continued to publish the defamatory material, irreparable damage would be done to her name, reputation and election prospects (and those of the PDs) at a sensitive time during the election campaign. She believed the article was part of an agenda to undermine the democratic process.
Mr Ryan said his side had been in contact with a variety of people and certain communications had been received from some parties. It might be that appropriate undertakings would be given to Ms Harney's side which would render it unnecessary to proceed with the application.
Mr Justice McCracken said he was quite happy the matter be brought to a head immediately and granted the order allowing the case to come before the court today.