National Irish gets injunction against RTE

National Irish Bank has secured a temporary injunction from the High Court preventing National Irish gets injunction against RTE making use of or publishing certain information which the bank claims is confidential.

The bank told the court that "ill-informed" reports about NIB broadcast on RTE and emulated in other sections of the media were defamatory of the bank and damaging to it and its customers.

Mr Justice Patrick Smith directed that the documents covered by the temporary injunction are any documentation identifying or tending to identify a customer, customer's account, transactions on any customer's account or investments made or business transacted by a customer.

The injunction is effective until next Monday week. Applying for the injunction late yesterday afternoon, Mr Richard Nesbitt SC, with Mr Michael Cush, for NIB and NIB Financial Services Ltd, read an affidavit of Mr Grahame Savage, NIB chief executive.

Counsel also read to the court correspondence between NIB and RTE.

On January 20th last, a letter was received from RTE News, signed by Mr Charlie Bird, whom he believed was a reporter, Mr Savage said. This illustrated that RTE was in possession of certain confidential information relating to the banking relationship between NIB, its customers and services.

On January 21st, a letter was written to RTE on behalf of NIB stating NIB was concerned about uninformed speculation by RTE which would be defamatory and damaging to the bank.

It was also concerned about the release by RTE of confidential information of NIB and its customers. He said RTE had clearly obtained that information in circumstances, which it knew or ought to have known, that it was released to them through a breach of confidence.

NIB was also concerned to ensure that RTE disclose to it particulars of the allegations being made for the purpose of assisting NIB to investigate such matters.

Mr Savage said a high level investigation into the matters raised by RTE was being conducted by the parent of NIB, National Australia Group Europe Ltd. This had already uncovered certain shortcomings in a limited number of internal procedures operated by the bank.

Those conducting the investigation were anxious to ensure that all shortcomings were uncovered and the appropriate measures put in place to ensure they did not recur.

The Central Bank and Revenue Commissioners had sought information from the bank in relation to the allegations made by RTE and the bank was fully co-operating with those inquiries. That RTE should, in such circumstances, refuse to disclose to NIB the confidential information which it possessed and which belonged to the bank was surprising.

The belief of NIB that RTE had in its possession, power or procurement, confidential information belonging to NIB had been confirmed by a number of exchanges involving Mr Bird, he said.

In the first exchange, a bank employee, Mr Paul Harty, received a phone message from one Joe McGrath. When he returned that call, he discovered that he was in fact speaking to Mr Bird.

Mr Bird then disclosed to Mr Harty that he had possession of certain documents and information - the exact nature of which was not disclosed - regarding the affairs of the bank. Mr Bird endeavoured to set up a meeting with Mr Harty, who declined. In a second exchange, a bank customer contacted an official of the bank to say he had received two phone calls from Mr Bird endeavouring to set up a meeting, which he declined.

Mr Savage said he had been informed that in one of those conversations, Mr Bird claimed he had a list of NIB's customers who had acquired CMI products. Those exchanges made it clear that RTE possessed confidential NIB documentation.

Following contact with RTE, it chose to publish reports on the topics dealt with in the letter which were defamatory of NIB and customers. Mr Savage said the "ill informed" nature of the reports which had been carried on RTE and emulated in other sections of the media was defamatory of and damaging to NIB and the interest of its customers.

The essence of the claim being made by RTE was that NIB had knowingly been involved in tax evasion by their customers and had intentionally acted to facilitate such tax evasion. NIB had made it clear that it was not, and was never its policy, to act in such a manner. But it was anxious to conclude an investigation into the circumstances which gave rise to the allegations for the purposes of satisfying itself there had been no wrongdoing on the part of NIB, its servants or agents.

Alternatively, if there was any wrongdoing, NIB wished to ensure the appropriate regulatory authorities were made aware of these matters.

Given the nature of the allegations, the investigation of the bank was a time consuming matter, requiring detailed analysis of many documents and the seeking of evidence from persons employed by the bank.

Mr Savage said it was clear to NIB that the catalyst of the allegations made by RTE was the wrongful dissemination of confidential information.

NIB did not wish to restrain RTEs fair comment on matters of public interest. But it was gravely concerned that RTE's refusal to deliver up particulars or copies of confidential information and to take steps to satisfy NIB that confidential information would not be used in breach of confidence would continue to damage NIB and customers in a manner which was unconnected with any legitimate reporting role by RTE. Mr Graham said he believed the information in question was not in the public domain and would only come into it if released by RTE. There was no basis upon which RTE required to make such information public. If RTE was in possession of information which suggested the commission of any wrongdoing, it should reports those facts to the authorities already investigating the allegations.

Further correspondence had passed between NIB's solicitors, Matheson Ormsby Prentice, and RTE, the court was told.

In a letter of January 29th, NIB sought certain undertakings from RTE and indicated that, in default of receipt of them, an application would be made to the court. In a letter dated yesterday, RTE declined to furnish the undertakings sought and reserved the right to investigate and report on the matter further.

Granting the temporary injunction, Mr Justice Smith said it seemed to him on the evidence that there was a real risk that confidential information would be published in the near future by RTE. The balance of convenience at this stage lay in favour of granting an interim injunction. The injunction was quite limited and did not prevent RTE from making fair comment on matters of public interest.