A dispute between Ms Geraldine Gilligan, wife of convicted drug dealer John Gilligan, and the Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB) about alleged prejudicial publicity of the bureau's application to sell assets of the Gilligans has been resolved, the High Court heard yesterday.
Mr Brian Murray SC, for CAB, told the court it was not the intention of the bureau to make any observation publicly which touches on the merits of proceedings by the bureau against Ms Gilligan until those proceedings are concluded.
On Monday, the court indicated it would address complaints by lawyers for Ms Gilligan about "egregious and prejudicial" publicity, including alleged publicity by CAB regarding its seeking to have an equestrian centre and other property worth some millions of euro handed over to the State.
The president of the High Court, Mr Justice Finnegan, also indicated on Monday that complaints by counsel for Ms Gilligan in relation to the publicity might perhaps be best addressed by some agreement with the bureau, if that were possible, rather than a court order.
Yesterday, Mr Murray said CAB reserved the right at any time to comment on, or correct, any factual matters in relation to the proceedings.
Mr Richard Humphreys, for Ms Gilligan, said his concern was in relation to future publicity and he was satisfied that what counsel for CAB had stated met his application.
He reserved the right to re-apply to court.
In December 1996, CAB secured an order under the Proceeds of Crime Act preventing John and Geraldine Gilligan and their son Darren and daughter Tracy, and anybody with notice of the order, from disposing or otherwise dealing with various properties, including Jessbrook Equestrian Centre and lands, at Mucklon, Enfield, Co Kildare, and two houses in Lucan, Dublin.
Under CAB legislation, a seven-year period must elapse before assets which have been "frozen" can be seized under court order.
CAB says the properties involved in the December 1996 proceedings have been subject to an order for more than seven years and it wants an order under section 4 of the Proceeds of Crime Act for a disposal order in respect of the properties.
Ms Gilligan has brought a motion, which has been adjourned, seeking an order dismissing the proceedings by CAB on grounds that they do not comply with the rules of the superior courts, and are an abuse of process.