A High Court judge has authorised James Morey to take the steps needed to bring Emerald Isle Assurances and Investments Ltd’s negligence proceedings against Coakley Moloney Solicitors to a conclusion, including through a hearing, settlement or appeal.
In a judgment delivered on 10 November 2017, Ms Justice Stewart granted orders under section 212 of the Companies Act 2014. The application arose from a dispute between Morey and Timothy Maverly, the company’s equal shareholders and only directors, over how the company should pursue the claim. The court said its orders authorised Morey to take the necessary steps to conclude those proceedings; it did not set out a damages award or decide the claim’s value.
The negligence action followed earlier proceedings against Hibernian Life Limited. Those proceedings settled in 2010 for €300,000, while preserving the company’s right to pursue other remedies. The company and both directors then sued Coakley Moloney, alleging negligence in the handling of the Hibernian claim. The High Court dismissed the company’s claim in 2012, but the Court of Appeal overturned that decision in January 2016, finding negligence and remitting the claim to the High Court to assess any loss and consider contributory negligence. A hearing was listed for February 2018.
Morey applied in June 2017 for authority to conduct the company’s further proceedings, including any appeal, and to negotiate a settlement. His application said any settlement would require Maverly’s consent or, if consent was not given, a court ruling after notice to Maverly. The court’s conclusion authorised Morey to take the steps required to bring the proceedings to a conclusion; the judgment does not detail each term of the final order.
Maverly opposed the application and proposed that the company auditor, forensic accountant and insurance expert be given carriage of the case, making decisions after consulting both directors. Justice Stewart considered that proposal unworkable, noting that two of the proposed individuals had filed affidavits supporting Maverly’s position and had not demonstrated an understanding of the risk to the company’s sole asset.
The judge said Maverly had not shown a willingness to act in the company’s interests and that the dispute risked leaving the company unable to progress its claim. The judgment also recorded that former solicitors had issued separate proceedings seeking costs from the company and both directors personally. Maverly agreed that Carley Connellan Solicitors could enter appearances in that case to prevent judgment by default, while reserving his right to be consulted about future steps.