DCC plc has refused to say whether it has made any payment to the Revenue Commissioners arising out of its insider trading clash with Fyffes.

A spokesman for the group also declined to comment on whether the group had been contacted by the Revenue in the wake of the case, or whether it was currently in contact with the Revenue over the matter.

DCC made a profit on cost of €85 million when it sold Fyffes shares worth €106.7 million in three sales in early February 2000. It did not incur a tax liability because of a scheme it had established under which decisions in relation to the shares had to be made by a Dutch-resident DCC subsidiary, Lotus Green.

"As is normal, the company would never comment on its tax affairs or its relations with the Revenue," the DCC spokesman said.

A source with knowledge of such matters said a plc might not have to declare a particular tax charge if it was of the view it was not "material".

Ms Justice Mary Laffoy in her lengthy ruling in the High Court in December 2005, ruled that in fact the DCC executive chairman, Jim Flavin, had dealt in the shares, and not Lotus Green as had been argued by Mr Flavin.

In the course of her ruling she referred to the "absurdity of the defendants' position that Lotus Green, and not Mr Flavin" brought about the first of the three sales.

She also noted that PricewaterhouseCoopers, which had advised DCC on the Dutch scheme, told it "that it would be vital to be able to demonstrate that effective management and control of Lotus Green was in the Netherlands . . . and it was emphasised that great care would have to be taken to ensure that the company was not de facto controlled from Ireland."

In her ruling, Ms Justice Laffoy found Mr Flavin during the case "professed to have no authority to act as agent on behalf of Lotus Green. However, the reality is that he assumed authority to act exclusively in the negotiations leading to the sales. In fact, he assumed total control on the sell side and the prospective buyers did not have any access to any other decision maker, if there was any. I infer from the evidence that there was none."

She also found that the "only reasonable inference that can be drawn from the evidence is that Mr Flavin acted with the tacit, if not express, approval of the board of DCC". In the wake of the High Court decision, Mr Flavin said the board "believed" the ruling would not have tax consequences.