The High Court has granted the Registrar of Companies leave to execute a 2013 costs order against Arnaud D. Gaultier, after finding that the delay was adequately explained and that he had shown no specific prejudice.
The ruling, delivered electronically by Mr Justice Barr on 28 July 2023, concerns costs awarded after Gaultier’s unsuccessful judicial review challenge to the Registrar’s decision to strike Loire Valley Limited off the Register of Companies and dissolve it. The 2013 order was later quantified at €25,215.06 by the Taxing Master.
The Registrar applied in March 2022 for leave to enforce the order, more than six years after it was made. The court heard that the parties had not agreed costs, the amount went through taxation and Gaultier challenged the Taxing Master’s ruling. A certificate of taxation issued in June 2017. An enforcement process was then halted while Gaultier pursued an appeal against the original order and sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court refused leave in January 2020. The Registrar attributed further delay to Covid-19 restrictions.
Gaultier disputed the application and raised objections about the evidence supporting it, the taxation of costs and the handling of his earlier cases. He also argued that prior judgments and orders were void and sought a stay. The court ruled that this application was not the forum to reopen the underlying dispute or investigate his claims about earlier hearings. It accepted the evidence from the Chief State Solicitor’s office about correspondence on the file and held that the evidence and exhibits were admissible. It also said the objection concerning a Revenue Commissioners report had already been addressed in an earlier ruling and was not justiciable in this application.
Justice Barr found that the Registrar had adequately explained the delay, including the costs process, the appeals and the pandemic restrictions. He said Gaultier had produced no evidence of specific prejudice caused by the delay. The court granted the relief sought in paragraph one of the Registrar’s motion and refused a stay.
The ruling did not itself set out a perfected final order. The parties were given four weeks to make brief written submissions on the terms of that order, costs and any other arising matters. The court said it would consider those submissions before issuing the final order. Its preliminary view was that the Registrar should receive the costs of the application, with any disagreement to be adjudicated.