In camera rule lifted to allow disclosure of information to trustee in US bankruptcy

Applicant and respondent are divorced but still involved in matrimonial proceedings - summary judgment granted in favour of National Asset Loan Management Ltd ("NALM") in March 2012 for €185,299,627.78 - applicant filed for Chapter VII bankruptcy in US in March 2013 - applicant adjudicated bankrupt in Ireland in July 2013 on foot of petition by non NAMA/NALM creditor - US bankruptcy trustee now seeks information as to whether applicant has made avoidable transfers of property to his new wife ("2nd wife") - in order to ascertain whether this has happened, NALM & trustee seek, inter alia, pleadings, affidavits and discovery made in Irish divorce proceedings - whether in camera rule in Irish law permits disclosure of this material - Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996 - s. 40(8) of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 sets out exception to in camera rule - Court may of its own motion or on application of parties order disclosure of documents, information or evidence connected with proceedings - Court rejects applicant's submission that "of its own motion should be interpreted strictly and literally" - Court finds that interpretation that would prevent interested third parties from applying to Court would lead to absurdity - provisions of the Family Law Act 1995 and Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996 are drafted so as to respect the rights of third parties - in Eastern Health Board v. Fitness to Practice Committee [1998] 3 I.R. 399, Barr J identified a common law power to lift the in camera rule in interests of justice - applicant and respondent identify numerous cases in which application was made to lift in camera rule and was refused - Court notes, however, that in these cases it was accepted that there exits a common law right to lift the rule where the interests of justice so demand - Court points out that in camera rule rarely lifted in its entirety, and its strictures are most often applied to the third parties receiving material - in addition, information provided can be redacted where necessary - Court finds as fact that first applicant has, whether intentionally or unintentionally, concealed assets in the course of the US bankruptcy process - Court holds that without full disclosure of the information sought, it would be impossible for the US bankruptcy court to establish the true position of the first applicant's assets and liabilities - having balanced the interest of the first named applicant and the respondent against the interest of the Irish taxpayer in the form of NALM, the Court holds the in camera rule should be lifted - lifting of in camera rule subject to redaction so as not to reveal private and sensitive non-commercial matters - information should only be used in the investigative process within the US bankruptcy and should not be publicly disseminated - information therefore not to be revealed unless official assignee and trustee in U.S. proceedings are authorised to use it within in the aforesaid constraints - Court notes that NALM/NAMA have undertaken to discharge respondent's costs of disclosure of documentation and hearing of this motion - Court also finds that costs of first applicant in respect of disclosure of material should be met by NAMA/NALM notwithstanding the first applicant's approach to the case not being commendable - Court finds that this approach necessary if delay is to be avoided - Court awaits further submissions regarding the form of the order and further costs issues.