Both sides to appeal elements of judgment

Both sides in the dispute over the appointment by the Tanaiste, Ms Harney, of an authorised officer to Dunnes Stores, are to appeal aspects of yesterday's High Court ruling to the Supreme Court.

Ms Harney has welcomed the High Court's decision to uphold the appointment of the officer, Mr Gerard Ryan, but is to appeal the aspect of the decision concerning the procedures which Mr Ryan must use.

Dunnes Stores, on the other hand, has welcomed the court's ruling in relation to the procedures which Mr Ryan must follow, but is to appeal the finding that Mr Ryan was properly appointed.

Ms Harney said she will seek an early hearing of her appeal. A hearing in the autumn would be the earliest possible. An authorised officer was first appointed to Dunnes Stores in August of last year, but little or no work has been conducted because of the various legal challenges which have taken place.

The officer was appointed to two Dunnes companies, Dunnes Stores Ireland Ltd and Dunnes Stores (Ilac Centre) Ltd. The original officer appointed, Mr George Maloney, was replaced by Mr Ryan after Dunnes argued in court against the former's appointment as he had previously worked for a member of the Dunnes family. An extensive order for documents from Mr Maloney, and then from his replacement, Mr Ryan, was not complied with as Dunnes took a High Court case where they successfully sought to have Ms Harney disclose the reasons for the appointment of the officer.

Following receipt and consideration of those reasons, Dunnes took the case on which judgment was handed down yesterday. The appeal by both sides of aspects of yesterday's judgment means the officer's work will be further delayed.

The High Court held yesterday that there had been no bad faith or vexatiousness on the Tanaiste's part in her decision to appoint Mr Ryan, but that he had no power under the Companies Act to compel witnesses to meet with him prior to the serving of orders for documents.

Under the law an authorised officer is allowed serve orders for documents and to have officers of the company to which he is appointed, explain those documents.

The appeal against the ruling in relation to procedures is likely to be based in part on the argument that the law in relation to the matter was not argued by the two sides in their respective affadavits.