The High Court ordered two directors of companies in receivership to deliver records about two specified debts within six weeks, while refusing the receivers’ request for a blanket handover of company books and records.
In a judgment delivered on 19 November 2013, Ms Justice Laffoy directed Johnny Moran and Sonjia Maher to provide documents and records in their possession concerning any debt owed by Clapin Limited to Citywide Leisure Limited, and any debt owed by Open Minds Centre Limited to Blarney Inn Limited that existed at any time on or after 1 January 2007.
The application was brought by receivers David Hughes and Luke Charleton under section 316 of the Companies Act 1963. They said the companies’ security documents entitled them to the books and records. They sought the records after documents presented in defence of winding-up petitions concerning Clapin and Open Minds appeared to the receivers to be company records they had not received.
The judgment records that a loan agreement exhibited by Moran in the Clapin petition proceedings purported to defer repayment of a debt to 2017. The receivers had sought the original agreement and related board minutes, but received no substantive response to those queries. Moran did not explain in this application why the agreement had not been handed to the receivers. The petitions were later withdrawn; the judge said it would be inappropriate to express a view on their outcome.
The respondents argued that the broad search and scheduling exercise required by the requested order would be oppressive, and described the application as an abuse of process. The judge said the receivers had shown a reasonable need for information about the two debts, but the evidence did not justify an all-embracing order. She also noted that the respondents appeared not to have submitted statements of affairs required by the legislation, and said pursuing compliance with those obligations would make more sense than seeking physical and electronic records so broadly.
The court ordered delivery of the specified records within six weeks of the judgment. It adjourned the application generally, giving the receivers liberty to return to court if they considered further recourse necessary. The ruling did not determine the outcome of the withdrawn winding-up petitions or the related proceedings mentioned by the respondents.