The Tánaiste, Ms Harney, is to proceed with a libel action against Magill magazine after the Flood tribunal confirmed it had not asked her to make extensive disclosure of her financial records.
The tribunal sent a fax to Ms Harney's solicitors with the confirmation yesterday evening after it had received a faxed request from them on the matter. The correspondence followed a High Court hearing yesterday when lawyers for the magazine said it would be standing over its article.
The solicitor to the Flood tribunal, Ms Maire Anne Howard, faxed Ms Harney's solicitors Vincent & Beatty yesterday evening, following the court case. "I am directed by the Sole Member [Mr Justice Flood] to confirm to you that no written request in the terms you mentioned in your facsimile has been made to your client, Ms Mary Harney TD, by the tribunal."
A spokesman for Ms Harney said last night that apart from the letter sent to all members of Dublin County Council during a certain period, Ms Harney has "never had another message, letter or any other correspondence from the Flood tribunal".
"As we see it now, the basis for the Magill case has collapsed," said her spokesman.
However, following the court case, consulting editor Mr John Waters said Magill stood over the substance of the cover story of its May edition and would "vigorously defend any future action arising from it".
In her fax, Ms Howard said she would like to point out that the work of the tribunal, other than that conducted at public hearings, is private and confidential. It is for this reason, she said, the tribunal has at all times declined to comment or provide information to third parties on what might or might not be the subject of its inquiries in private.
"However, in light of the current High Court proceedings the Sole Member has decided to provide the confirmation sought by you."
The Tánaiste's solicitors had faxed the tribunal yesterday afternoon stating she had never received any request for her financial records and seeking "confirmation from the tribunal that it has issued no such request".
They quoted the Magill article which said Ms Harney "is understood to have been served with an order from the Flood tribunal demanding that she furnish a sworn affidavit setting out in full, detail of all finances, sources of income and bank accounts dating back over the past 20 years.
"The order covers all contributions, donations, or payments either directly or indirectly made to her during the period she served as county councillor with Dublin County Council . . ."
The solicitors pointed out that yesterday an affidavit was sworn on behalf of Magill which stated: "I accept that no formal order has been made by the Flood tribunal. However, a formal written request has been made to the plaintiff that she should produce the details mentioned in the first paragraph of the article. The important fact is that the Flood tribunal has requested this information and the issue of whether it has done so by order or otherwise is not of central significance."
In a statement yesterday, Mr Waters said they had gone to the High Court on what now appeared to have been a misunderstanding. "We understood there would be an application before the court to have the May edition of Magill withdrawn from the shops. It now appears that this was not what the plaintiff in this case required.
"Instead, the application was to prevent the publication and distribution of further copies of the May edition of Magill." It was never the intention, he said, to publish and distribute any further copies. "We have already shifted our focus to the June edition of Magill. Therefore, we found ourselves with no difficulty concerning the application before the court, and indeed are somewhat perplexed as to why we are here at all."