Gaultier v The Registrar of Companies

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Allen
• Judgment Date: 06 May 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IECA 93
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)
• Docket Number: Appeal Number: 2023/298

Between

Arnaud D. Gaultier

Appellant

and

The Registrar of Companies

Respondent

[2025] IECA 93

Faherty J.

Allen J.

O'Moore J.

Appeal Number: 2023/298

THE COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL

Costs – Adjudication – Judicial review – Respondent seeking costs – Whether the substance of the appeal should be re-opened

Facts: The High Court (Dunne J), on 8 March 2013, made an order for the payment by the appellant, Mr Gaultier, of the costs of a failed challenge by way of judicial review to the dissolution by the respondent, the Registrar of Companies (the Registrar), of a company by reason of that company’s failure to file the accounts and returns required by law. By notice of motion issued on 28 March 2022, the Registrar applied to the High Court for an order pursuant to O. 42, r. 24 of the Rules of the Superior Courts giving leave to issue execution on foot of the costs order and, for the reasons given in a written judgment delivered on 28 July 2023, the High Court (Barr J) made the order sought. Mr Gaultier appealed to the Court of Appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court granting leave to issue execution, as well as a further ruling refusing to re-open the judgment on the substance of the motion. For the reasons given in the judgment of Faherty J of 7 March 2025, the Court of Appeal decided that Mr Gaultier’s appeal should be dismissed. A hearing was scheduled for 11 April, 2025 to deal with the question of costs. Mr Gaultier proposed that the Court should review the judgment which had been delivered on the substantive appeal on the grounds that: (1) “Ireland is not really a common law jurisdiction”; (2) “The role of the courts is not to administere [sic.] justice but to vindicate the rights of citizens”; and (3) “There is nothing in the Constitution which obliges the Court to use an adversarial process, or which prevents the Court to use an inquisitorial process when needs be”. Mr Gaultier submitted that none of these propositions had ever been argued in the Irish courts and relied on an observation said to have been made by O’Dálaigh CJ in The State (Quinn) v Ryan [1965] I.R. 70 that “what has not been argued has not been decided”.

Held by Allen J that the proposition that the Court should re-open the substance of the appeal by reference to arguments which were never previously made was misconceived. He held that the only valid issue on the appeal was whether the High Court judge could be shown to have erred in his conclusion that the delay in executing the costs order had been sufficiently explained or that Mr Gaultier had not been prejudiced. Allen J noted that neither in the High Court nor on the appeal did Mr Gaultier attempt to engage with the irrefutable evidence of the circumstances in which execution was delayed, nor did he attempt to suggest that he had been prejudiced; instead, he insisted that he was not bound by an order that he did not like. Allen J found that Mr Gaultier did not seriously contest the Registrar’s submission that she was entirely successful on the appeal. Allen J accepted the Registrar’s submission that it was not appropriate that Mr Gaultier should have sought to reventilate on the costs application the issues which were comprehensively addressed in the judgment of Faherty J.

Allen J affirmed the order of the High Court and made an order for the adjudication of the Registrar’s costs of the appeal - including the costs of the hearing in relation to costs - and for payment by Mr Gaultier of those costs when so adjudicated.

Order affirmed.

NO REDACTION NEEDED

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Allen delivered on the 6 ^th day of May, 2025

1 . On 8 ^th March, 2013 the High Court (Dunne J.) made an order for the payment by Mr. Gaultier of the costs of a failed challenge by way of judicial review to the dissolution by the Registrar of Companies of a company called Loire Valley Limited by reason of that company's failure to file the accounts and returns required by law. Those costs were eventually taxed in the sum of €25,215.06.

2 . In the circumstances fully set out in the judgement of Faherty J. delivered on 7 ^th March, 2025 ( [2025] IECA 58) that order was not executed within six years. In very broad terms, there were several appeals against and challenges to the costs order, which culminated in a determination of the Supreme Court made on 20 ^th January, 2020 refusing an application by Mr. Gaultier for leave to appeal. ( [2020] IESCDET 2) Soon thereafter, and for a considerable time, the ordinary business of the High Court was significantly disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

3 . By notice of motion issued on 28 ^th March, 2022 the Registrar applied to the High Court for an order pursuant to O. 42, r. 24 of the Rules of the Superior Courts giving leave to issue execution on foot of the costs order and, for the reasons given in a written judgment delivered on 28 ^th July, 2023 ( [2023] IEHC 461), the High Court (Barr J.) made the order sought. In essence, Barr J. was satisfied that the Registrar had sufficiently explained the delay in execution, and that Mr. Gaultier had not shown that he had been prejudiced by the lapse of time.

4 . Mr. Gaultier appealed to this Court against the judgment and order of the High Court granting leave to issue execution – as well as a further ruling refusing to re-open the judgment on the substance of the motion. For the reasons given in the judgment of Faherty J. of 7 ^th March, 2025 (with which O'Moore J. and I agreed) this Court decided that Mr. Gaultier's appeal should be dismissed.

5 . The submissions made by Mr. Gaultier in support of his appeal were carefully and comprehensively addressed in the judgment of Faherty J. The gravamen of his appeal to this Court – which reflected his opposition in the High Court – was that the High Court order of 8 ^th March, 2013 (which had been affirmed by this Court on 23 ^rd July, 2019 [2019] IECA 210) was “void ab initio”. The proposition was that the High Court costs order never existed and that it – and Mr. Gaultier's appeal against it and challenges to it – should be disregarded. For the reasons given in the judgment of Faherty J., Mr. Gaultier's attempts to impugn the previous orders was entirely impermissible.

6 . At para. 117 of the judgment of Faherty J., the Court noted that the Registrar was presumptively entitled to an...