The Court of Appeal has dismissed three appeals by Arnaud Gaultier arising from claims over wine seized by the Revenue Commissioners from Loire Valley Limited, a company he directed and solely owned. The court upheld orders dismissing his proceedings and refused his bid to have an affidavit treated as a statement of claim. It also indicated that he should pay the respondents’ appeal costs, subject to a possible further hearing on costs.
The judgment, delivered on 27 April 2022, concerned appeals from High Court orders made in 2017. The original proceedings sought damages and other relief from the Revenue Commissioners and five other respondents. The claims against the Revenue Commissioners arose from the seizure and detention of the company’s wine. The claims against the other respondents related principally to Gaultier’s allegation that he had been prevented from issuing proceedings in the company’s name.
The company had been struck off the Register of Companies in April 2012, before the proceedings began. The Court of Appeal said the company was therefore a non-existent legal entity when Gaultier named it as a notice party. It also found that the pleadings described the wine and resulting loss as belonging to the company. The court held that a claim for loss suffered by the company could only be brought by the company, and that Gaultier could not recover company losses by claiming personal or shareholding losses.
Gaultier argued that a supplier had transferred ownership of some of the wine to him after its seizure. The court said that even if he had acquired an interest later, this did not establish the pleaded claim for damages arising from the seizure. The transfer document he relied on did not remove the company’s debt for the wine, and he had not produced the asserted retention-of-title clause.
The court also upheld the dismissal of claims against the second to sixth respondents. It found that Gaultier had failed to deliver a statement of claim to those parties despite an extension of time, and that the delay in pursuing the claims was both inordinate and inexcusable. It agreed that the balance of justice favoured dismissal.
The third appeal concerned a motion to rename a 2012 affidavit as a statement of claim. The court held that the rules cited did not permit the change sought and dismissed that appeal too. A separate motion seeking to restrain revenue enforcement was not heard after the underlying proceedings were dismissed; the Court of Appeal found no error in that procedural outcome.
The court dismissed all three appeals. Its indicative costs order is that Gaultier pay the respondents’ appeal costs, with the amount to be determined if the parties cannot agree. He could request a short hearing to argue for a different costs order within 14 days of judgment.