The High Court has refused Arnaud Gaultier’s application to revisit a ruling that he could not represent Sup Pliable Limited in court proceedings, finding no strong reason to reopen the decision.
In a judgment delivered on 28 July 2023, Mr Justice Cregan said the arguments raised by Gaultier did not establish the “strong reasons” or “exceptional circumstances” needed for a first-instance court to reconsider its judgment before its order was perfected. The court refused the application and made no change to its 16 May decision.
That earlier decision arose during an interlocutory injunction application brought by Gaultier and the company against three defendants. The first and second defendants objected to Gaultier representing the company, which the judgment describes as a single-member company. The judge held that a company generally must appear through a solicitor or barrister with a right of audience, subject to exceptional circumstances. He found no such circumstances and dismissed the company’s interlocutory claims.
The judge also refused the remaining injunction requests Gaultier pursued against the third defendant, his wife, Louise Swords. Those requests included an order concerning the company’s stock, an order requiring Swords to attend a directors’ meeting despite having resigned, and an order preventing her from selling property in Belfast. On the property request, the judge said there was little affidavit evidence supporting it, damages could be an adequate remedy, and the balance of convenience favoured refusing an order. He did not decide whether the court had jurisdiction over the property.
In seeking to reopen the representation ruling, Gaultier argued, among other things, that section 41 of the Companies Act 2014 could allow the company to empower him by power of attorney; that the rule against lay representation was incompatible with European Union law; and that his fiduciary duties required him to act for the company. The judge rejected those arguments, saying the Supreme Court authorities bound the High Court and that the company could appoint its own solicitor. He also refused Gaultier’s request for a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union, finding no EU-law issue requiring one.
The judge said the renewed arguments amounted in substance to an impermissible collateral attack on a Supreme Court decision and described them as an abuse of process. The judgment concerns whether the May ruling should be reopened; it does not determine the underlying claims in the plenary proceedings.