Fitzpatrick v Gladney

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Supreme Court
• Judge: O'Donnell J.,Dunne J.,Finlay Geoghegan J.
• Judgment Date: 28 January 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] IESCDET 14
• Date: 28 January 2019

[2019] IESCDET 14

THE SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

O'Donnell J.

Dunne J.

Finlay Geoghegan J.

In the Matter of Star Elm Frames Limited and In the Matter of the Companies Act, 2014

Between/

Anthony J. Fitzpatrick

Applicant

And

Michael Gladney

Respondent

COURT: Court of Appeal

DATE OF ORDER: 27 April 2018

DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 8 May 2018

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON the 5 June 2018 AND WAS IN TIME.

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO WHICH ARTICLE 34.5.3° OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES

RESULT: The Court adjourns consideration of this application for leave pending the judgment of the Court in In the Matter of Ballyrider Limited (In Voluntary Liquidation), Revenue Commissioners v. Fitzpatrick

1 The applicant seeks leave to appeal against part of the order of the Court of Appeal (Peart J., Irvine J. and Gilligan J.) made on 27 April 2018, which dismissed the applicant's appeal against an order of the High Court which granted the respondent (as petitioner for an order for the winding up of Star Elm Frames Limited) an order for costs personally against the applicant who was then the voluntary liquidator of Star Elm Frames Limited. The applicant also applies to appeal against the costs order made against him personally in respect of the appeal. Those orders were made for the reasons set out in a judgment delivered by Peart J. on 19 April 2018: In the Matter of Star Elm Frames Limited [2018] IECA 103.

2 The applicant contends that the judgment of the Court of Appeal in relation to costs raises issues of general public importance as to the circumstances in which a voluntary liquidator may have an order for costs made personally against him.

3 The respondent disputes that the decisions in respect of which leave to appeal is sought involve a matter of general public importance. The respondent also submits that any decision in relation to this application should await the judgment of the Court in an appeal between the same parties which concerns an award of costs made against the applicant personally where he was a voluntary liquidator (see: In the Matter of Ballyrider Limited (In Voluntary Liquidation), Revenue Commissioners v. Fitzpatrick [2017] IESCDET 133). That appeal has been heard and judgment reserved.

4 Whilst the costs issues in In the Matter of Ballyrider Limited (In Voluntary Liquidation) arise in a different factual context to the present proceedings,...