The Supreme Court dismissed two appeals by Arnaud D. Gaultier concerning attempts to act for Loire Valley Limited after it was struck off the companies register, but allowed a third appeal against an order refusing leave to issue proceedings against Allied Irish Banks plc. The court said setting aside that order was unlikely to have any practical or beneficial consequence.
In a judgment delivered by O’Donnell J. on 12 December 2019, the court considered three ex parte applications made in the High Court in July and August 2012. The judgment said Loire Valley Limited had been struck off for failing to file annual returns, effective 6 April 2012. It described statutory restoration as the appropriate route, involving outstanding returns and, where required, notice to interested parties.
The first appeal concerned an application to obtain interim relief requiring restoration of the company while judicial review proceedings were pending. The Supreme Court said the High Court judge understood Mr Gaultier to be seeking an interim injunction that would provide the substantive relief sought in the review. That application was refused. The later substantive judicial review had also been refused, according to information Mr Gaultier gave the Supreme Court. The court dismissed the appeal, finding the issue moot and any request to amend the grounds unnecessary.
The second appeal concerned Mr Gaultier’s request to exercise powers under section 231(1) of the Companies Act 1963 to bring proceedings in the company’s name. The Supreme Court upheld the refusal, holding that the provision applied to a liquidator in a court winding-up and did not apply to Mr Gaultier. It said allowing him to proceed without restoring the dissolved company would circumvent statutory requirements.
The third appeal arose from proposed claims against the bank. Mr Gaultier claimed €44,000 personally and the company claimed €127,542.69, alleging losses connected with withdrawal of banking facilities and a bank guarantee. Those were claims, not findings. The High Court made no order after an ex parte hearing on 9 August 2012, but the Supreme Court treated the decision as refusing leave to issue proceedings.
The Supreme Court allowed that appeal and set aside the order. It noted that the company was dissolved at the time and could not have commenced proceedings, and that the alleged events dated to 2006. It said any useful effect of setting aside the order was unclear and the claims appeared likely to face multiple obstacles. The judgment’s closing suggestion that the Revenue Commissioners might consider an ex gratia payment was tentative; it stressed that any such decision was entirely for Revenue.