The High Court dismissed a petition by Patrick Gleeson to wind up Tazbell Services Group, finding that the claimed debt was not bona fide, was fully contested and that bringing the petition was an abuse of process.
In a judgment delivered ex tempore on 18 May 2015, Mr Justice Cregan said Gleeson claimed the company owed him about €125,000 and had failed to meet a demand for payment. The petition relied on alleged inability to pay debts as a ground for winding up under section 213 of the Companies Act 1963. The judge said that ground was discretionary.
The judgment records that Tazbell was authorised by the Courts Service to collect court fines. Uncontroverted affidavit evidence showed Gleeson had about €2,950 in fines and costs imposed by courts, which remained due. The fines followed convictions for various offences, including non-display of tax, insurance or an NCT, and failure, as liquidator of an insolvent company, to provide the ODCE with a report in the prescribed form.
Gleeson had invoiced Tazbell €2,000 for reading its letters, €4,000 for writing letters to it, and €10,000 for alleged unauthorised use of his name, which he said was covered by a trade mark and contained in a “private trust”. The company disputed the claimed debt. Gleeson said the €10,000 charge related to trespass or infringement of his alleged trade mark. The judge said any claim for trade mark infringement should be pursued through an action for damages and that Gleeson could not simply choose a figure without evidence.
The judge found both the debt and the demand were not bona fide. He said the debt was disputed even if the demand had been bona fide, and found that the petition was an abuse of process. He accepted evidence from a company director, Mr O’Gara, that he was a director and had standing to oppose the petition. The judgment also records evidence that Tazbell was solvent and profitable, and that its bankers contacted it after learning of the petition, causing the company considerable concern.
The court found no evidence that Gleeson had registered the claimed trade mark with the Irish Patents Office or the European Patent Office (OHIM). It concluded that the petition was baseless and dismissed it. The judgment does not record a winding-up order.