The High Court has begun hearing an application by former INM chairman Leslie Buckley to have the appointment of two inspectors to investigate matters at the company set aside.
Mr Buckley claims the inspectors have prepared material in a way that is unfair to him and favourable to his accusers.
Senior Counsel Sean Guerin told the court that Mr Buckley believes the two inspectors have prepared material, exhibiting an "overwhelming, dominant and persistent pattern of error" in a way that is unfairly adverse to him and unfairly favourable to those accusing him of wrongdoing, especially the former INM chief executive Robert Pitt.
Mr Guerin said Mr Pitt was Mr Buckley's principal accuser and had almost no criticism of the documents at all.
He said the inspectors had failed to strike a balance between the two men in the preparation of draft statements in the investigation.
Mr Buckley wants the appointment of the inspectors set aside or a direction from the court that they recuse themselves from any further involvement in the investigation on the grounds of alleged objective bias.
The inspectors, Sean Gillane and Robert Fleck, reject the claims of objective bias and say Mr Buckley's application is fundamentally misconceived.
Their investigation is continuing but the court heard it has been hampered in some respects by the Covid-19 pandemic.
The inspectors were appointed by the High Court two years ago, following an application by the ODCE.
The ODCE had been investigating matters raised in protected disclosures by Mr Pitt and former INM Chief Financial Officer, Ryan Preston.
The ODCE raised concerns about issues, including an alleged data breach at INM in 2014, which involved data being exported from the jurisdiction and interrogated by third parties.
Mr Guerin told the court Mr Buckley had brought this application reluctantly. He said both inspectors were of impeccable character, but it had to be seen in the context of Mr Buckley's right to his good name.
He said Mr Buckley had become chairman of INM when it was sinking in a massive pool of debt.
Mr Guerin said he would normally be entitled to have reputational benefit from the fact that under his leadership the debt was paid off and the company became cash positive and outward looking.
But he said that reputation was "essentially destroyed" by the allegations made in the application for the appointment of inspectors.
He said Mr Buckley had cooperated extensively with the inspectors, as he saw the process as a means of "righting the wrongs done to him".
But matters had developed to a point where he considered he had no alternative but to bring this application.
The hearing is continuing.
