The Court of Appeal allowed Martin McCaughey’s appeal over whether he could represent McCaughey Developments Limited in proceedings concerning the appointment of a receiver. It did not decide the broader question of when a company director or shareholder may represent a company in court.
The appeal concerned a High Court order refusing McCaughey permission to represent the company. He is a director and shareholder of the company, which is in receivership. The judgment records that he and the company lacked funds to retain lawyers.
Declan McDonald was allegedly appointed receiver by Danske Bank under a floating charge dated 18 December 1998. The judgment says the bank alleged that more than €8 million advanced to the company remained unpaid. McCaughey disputed the charge and the basis for the receiver’s appointment, alleging that the charge had been changed after the appointment and that the registered charge was not the original. Those matters were not determined in this appeal.
The High Court had refused McCaughey’s application to represent the company, following authorities that it considered binding. On appeal, the receiver accepted that McCaughey could, as a named defendant, raise any relevant arguments and adduce relevant evidence in the plenary proceedings, including material that could benefit the company.
The Court of Appeal concluded that, given that position, it did not need to decide whether McCaughey was entitled to represent the company. It allowed the appeal and varied the order to make clear that, in this case, he could advance all relevant arguments and evidence for the issues to be tried, including those that might benefit the company.
The judgment said related proceedings under section 316 of the Companies Acts raised questions about the floating charge, but those issues would be considered in the plenary proceedings, which were to be heard first. The court said that if a question about McCaughey appearing for the company arose in the related proceedings, it would have to be dealt with in the High Court. The Court of Appeal made no ruling on the underlying validity of the charge or the receiver’s appointment.