The High Court has declined to restrict three respondents from acting as company directors or secretaries, finding that delay in bringing the application had unfairly affected the first respondent’s right to a fair hearing.
The application was brought by Martin V. Ferris, liquidator of Lacrombs Limited, under section 819 of the Companies Act 2014. The declarations sought would have prevented the respondents from acting as directors or secretaries unless a company had share capital of at least €100,000 for a private company or €500,000 for a public company.
The respondents objected that the application was late and that the delay was inordinate and inexcusable. The court noted the liquidator’s appointment in March 2010 and the notice of motion in June 2015. The parties’ accounts differed on when the liquidator submitted his ninth report to the Director of Corporate Enforcement: the liquidator referred to 5 December 2014, while the director’s letter recorded receipt on 11 December. The court said it had not been given the contents or dates of the nine reports. The reasons suggested for the delay included alleged non-cooperation by the respondents and missing company records.
The judgment recounted affidavit evidence that the company’s handwritten transaction records had been destroyed after liquidation, and that the liquidator could not reconcile directors’ loan accounts. The liquidator also identified a claim for €68,587 against a company with common directors and shareholders, while acknowledging that the father had made lodgements to Lacrombs of about €500,000 after 31 July 2008. The court did not resolve the disputed claim, saying the conflict in evidence required to be heard.
The court said no dishonesty had been alleged. It found no evidence that the second respondent or the mother had been involved in destroying the records or had acted wrongly by relying on the father to keep and report on the accounts. It also noted there was no suggestion that handwritten accounts were irresponsible simply because they were not maintained using accounting software.
The judge concluded that the delay had detrimentally affected the father’s fair-hearing right. Given his condition, the public interest in restricting his right to be involved in companies was less pressing than in most cases, and the unfairness caused by delay outweighed that interest. The court therefore declined to make any of the declarations sought. It did not determine the disputed associated-company claim.