The High Court found that former liquidator Anthony J. Fitzpatrick breached an order requiring him to hand over the books and records of Star Elm Frames Limited by 15 August 2016. The court described the breach as historical and limited because the records were delivered on 5 September. It declined to impose a fine and said it would hear submissions on costs.
The company was wound up by court order on 10 August 2016, when Myles Kirby was appointed official liquidator in place of Fitzpatrick. The order required Fitzpatrick to present the company’s books, records, accounts and property to Kirby by close of business on 15 August. The company and Fitzpatrick appealed, but the Court of Appeal refused to stay the substantive order.
Kirby brought a motion seeking, among other relief, Fitzpatrick’s attachment and committal for alleged contempt. The records were handed over after the motion’s initial hearing, and Kirby no longer pursued attachment, committal or sequestration. He continued to seek a finding of historical contempt and a sanction.
Fitzpatrick disputed that he had breached the order. His representatives said they would not hand over the records at a meeting on 15 August, citing legal advice that the order was wrong and that the status quo should be maintained pending a stay application. Fitzpatrick also argued that the order required delivery to Kirby personally, who had not attended the meeting. The court rejected that argument, finding the representatives understood that Kirby’s staff expected the records and that the meeting concerned their handover.
Applying the beyond reasonable doubt standard, the judge found that Fitzpatrick had decided not to comply “for the time being”. She accepted that he acted on legal advice to maintain the status quo while seeking a stay. The delay ended when the records were delivered on 5 September. The court said the case did not warrant a penalty for civil contempt, noting that enforcement of the order had been achieved and that it did not specify where handover had to take place.
A separate issue concerned Fitzpatrick’s records as former liquidator. The judge said the Companies Act 2014 required a former liquidator to deliver relevant items to a newly appointed liquidator. Although Fitzpatrick’s liquidator’s file had been handed over, the court directed him to comply with that statutory obligation, citing correspondence between the parties and the need to ensure the orderly progress of Kirby’s work. The court did not determine whether all such records had been provided. Costs remained for later submissions.