The High Court has set out the issues to be determined in a dispute over whether an appeal was authorised on behalf of two companies in voluntary liquidation. The court directed that the central question of authority be decided on oral evidence, but did not decide whether the appeal could proceed.
In a judgment delivered on 15 July 2013, Ms Justice Laffoy said the hearing should address whether creditor Seamus Maye had the necessary authority or consent to issue and serve a notice of appeal for Amantiss Enterprises Limited and Wilbury Limited, and, if so, its extent. The principal witnesses are expected to be Mr Maye and the companies’ liquidator, Des Donnegan, though the judge did not rule out other witnesses. She also left open whether the defendants in the underlying competition proceedings could call evidence, cross-examine witnesses or make submissions on that issue.
The appeal, Supreme Court Appeal No. 445/2012, followed the High Court’s dismissal of competition proceedings on 26 July 2012. The Supreme Court struck out the companies’ appeals on 14 May 2013, but stayed its order for three months to allow the High Court’s jurisdiction to be invoked. The Supreme Court had noted a factual dispute about the liquidator’s consent and said creditors had limited standing to seek the High Court’s supervisory intervention. It did not indicate what the High Court should decide.
Justice Laffoy ordered the issues to be dealt with at one hearing, which she considered likely to use court time efficiently. They include whether the court can sanction the liquidator’s resignation, how a replacement would be appointed, and whether either the current or a replacement liquidator could authorise or pursue the appeal. The court will also consider what directions, if any, could lawfully allow the appeal to proceed, or whether a replacement liquidator could bring a new appeal and seek more time.
The judge proposed that the hearing begin on 23 July and that judgment be delivered before the end of August. She suggested the parties apply to the Supreme Court to extend the stay. These were directions for the next stage of the proceedings; the judgment did not resolve the disputed authority, the liquidator’s position or the future of the appeal.