Dunnes Stores Ireland Company v Maloney

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1999
• Date: 01 January 1999
• Court: Supreme Court

( H.C.)

Dunnes Stores Ireland Co

and

Maloney

Availability of relief - Discretionary power - Decision to appoint "authorised officer" - Fair procedures.

Part II of the Companies Act, 1990, at ss. 7 to 24 inclusive, provides for the conduct of official investigations into the affairs of corporate bodies. Section 19 of the Companies Act, 1990, provides, inter alia, that the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (the second respondent), if of the opinion that there are circumstances suggesting that it is necessary to examine the books and documents of a company with a view to determining whether an inspector should be appointed to investigate the affairs of that company, may require the production of such documents and materials as may be specified to the Minister or an officer appointed for that purpose. Section 21 of the Act of 1990 provides, inter alia, that no information relating to a company which has been obtained under s. 19 shall, without the previous consent in writing of that company, be published or disclosed, except to a competent authority, unless such publication or disclosure is required by the Minister or the court in certain expressly defined and limited circumstances. Section 23(1) of the Act of 1990 provides that nothing in Part II of that Act shall compel the disclosure by any person of any information which he would, in the opinion of the court, be entitled to refuse to produce on the grounds of legal professional privilege or authorise the taking of possession of any document containing such information which is in his possession. The first respondent was appointed by the second respondent as an "authorised officer" for the purposes of s. 19 of the Companies Act, 1990, to obtain information from the first and second applicants, who were corporate bodies, regarding the affairs of those two companies. The third applicant was a director and shareholder of the first and second applicants. The second respondent claimed to have formed the necessary opinion required by s. 19 of the Act of 1990 pursuant to information obtained from other official sources namely, two earlier, separate investigations into different corporate bodies, the report of a tribunal of inquiry and an ongoing inquiry conducted under the auspices of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland. The applicants had co-operated with all of these investigations and had furnished considerable amounts of documentation to them for the purposes of their...