Revenue Cmrs v Fitzpatrick

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Ms. Justice Murphy
• Judgment Date: 27 October 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] IEHC 676
• Court: High Court
• Date: 27 October 2015

[2015] IEHC 676

THE HIGH COURT

[No.391 COS/2014]

Revenue Cmrs v Fitzpatrick

IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES ACTS 1963 TO 2012 AND BALLYRIDER LIMITED (IN VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION)

THE REVENUE COMMISSIONERS

Applicant

AND

ANTHONY J. FITZPATRICK

Respondent

Company – The Companies Act 1963-2012 – Removal of liquidator – Recovery of costs against liquidator – O. 99 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986

Facts: Following the judgment of the Court directing the removal of the respondent as the liquidator of a company, the applicants now sought an order for the recovery of costs of the proceedings against the respondent personally.

Ms. Justice Murphy granted an order to the applicants for the recovery of the costs of the proceedings from the respondent personally. The Court, however, granted a stay on the payment of those costs subject to the outcome of the appeal pending determination in the Court of Appeal from the main application directing the removal of the liquidator. The Court held that the respondent was liable to pay the costs as envisaged under o. 99 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 as his conduct of liquidation was found to be deficient. The Court found that liquidator could not be held to say that he was acting as an agent of the company and thus the company was not liable to defray his costs as well as the costs of the applicants.

1 Judgment of Ms. Justice Murphy delivered the 27th day of October, 2015

2 1. This application arises following the Court's judgment in the above matter, delivered on 21 ^st July, 2015, in which the Court ordered the removal of the respondent as liquidator of Ballyrider Limited, for cause shown. The reasons for that decision are set out in full in the Court's previous judgment. The applicants now seek an order that the costs of these proceedings be awarded against the respondent. The applicant also seeks a declaration pursuant to s. 280 of the Companies Act that such costs were not costs properly incurred in the liquidation and accordingly should be awarded against the respondent personally.

3 2. The main application sought alternative remedies. The applicant asked that the Court make certain declarations on specific issues arising in the liquidation or alternatively that the Court remove the respondent for cause shown. Having found that the respondent had not conducted the liquidation in...