However, those texts did not make it into a draft document by the inspectors providing evidence to support Mr Pitt’s claims, Seán Guerin SC said.
The attorney also alleged that the inspectors did not point to conflicting reports from Mr Pitt about a conversation between him and INM IT Director Gerry Wilde about whether Mr Buckley had instructed Mr Pitt, not questions to be informed in connection with the data query.
The attorney said Mr. Pitt was given “a passport” on questions of fact that “seriously undermined” his own credibility and the credibility of the allegations he made.
Mr. Guerin stressed that he was not proposing an “agenda” or actual bias of the inspectors. The court might think the inspectors may have made mistakes – but its side was concerned when the mistakes all went “in a direction” in a way that opposed Mr Buckley, he said.
Mr. Guerin instituted Mr. Buckley’s motion before Mr. Justice Garrett Simons for the inspectors to be dismissed on grounds of alleged objective bias or for orders to withdraw from any further involvement in the investigation.
Inspectors Seán Gillane and Richard Fleck, whose investigation continues but has been hampered in some ways by the Covid-19 pandemic, refute allegations of objective bias, arguing that the application is “fundamentally misunderstood”.
They contest their presentation of the evidence to which they relate as “assessments” or “summaries” of that evidence.
The parties to the motion include Mr. Pitt and businessman Denis O’Brien, formerly the majority shareholder of INM.
Mr Guerin told the court that in connection with allegations of a data breach at INM in 2014, the inspectors had not provided relevant evidence to support Mr Buckley’s evidence of ordering a data search relating to a legal service contract but nothing do with the generation of 19 names of journalists and others.
Instead, the inspectors presented a “very generous” report of “totally uninformed opinions” from various individuals who had no direct knowledge of the relevant data issues that were “very detrimental” to Mr Buckley, the attorney said.
He said the inspectors had “clearly struck a balance between Mr. Buckley and Mr. Pitt in preparing the draft materials for investigation.”
The inspectors were appointed by the High Court in September 2018 at the request of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE). Matters followed that were raised in proprietary information by Mr. Pitt and former INM Chief Financial Officer Ryan Preston in 2016 and 2017.
The ODCE raised concerns about issues, including an alleged data breach at INM in 2014 where data was exported from the jurisdiction and queried by a third party. Mr Buckley, who stepped down as INM chair in March 2018, said it was a cost-cutting measure called Operation Quantum.
Mr Guerin said Mr Buckley’s request was “reluctantly” given that both inspectors were of good character, but it should be seen in the context of Mr Buckley’s right to his good name.
The inspectors were tasked with investigating a number of matters at INM that the ODCE claimed could “indicate wrongdoing,” the lawyer said. This is not proof of wrongdoing, he emphasized.
Mr. Buckley had become chairman of INM when it “sank into a massive pool of debt,” and under his leadership all of the debt was paid off and the company went cash positive and outward, the attorney said.
Mr Buckley’s reputation was “essentially ruined” due to matters in the application to appoint the inspectors, he said.
Mr. Buckley had seen the inspection process as a means of “correcting the mistakes made” and worked closely with the inspectors in that regard, the attorney added.
However, the investigation was so advanced that Mr Buckley believed he had no choice but to file this request, he said.
The hearing will continue on Wednesday.
Online editors
These were the details of the news The texts between Robert Pitt and Leslie Buckley showed a “completely... for this day. We hope that we have succeeded by giving you the full details and information. To follow all our news, you can subscribe to the alerts system or to one of our different systems to provide you with all that is new.
It is also worth noting that the original news has been published and is available at de24.news and the editorial team at AlKhaleej Today has confirmed it and it has been modified, and it may have been completely transferred or quoted from it and you can read and follow this news from its main source.
