The Court of Appeal has dismissed John Sheridan’s appeal against the refusal to restore Emerald Contract Cleaners Limited, a company struck off the Register of Companies. It found no basis to interfere with the High Court’s dismissal of his application, brought as a purported creditor under section 738 of the Companies Act 2014.
The appeal concerned the defunct company, registration number 22322, and a long-running dispute about whether “James V. Sheridan” in company records referred to Sheridan’s deceased teenage brother, James Vincent Sheridan, or his uncle, James Valentine Sheridan, who ran cleaning businesses. Sheridan’s application relied in part on affidavits from retired accountant Fintan Flannelly, who said he had seen transfers including a sum of £2,122,210.
The Court of Appeal reviewed the earlier proceedings, including a 1996 High Court judgment that had considered the identity and company ownership dispute. It also noted that a 2001 order restoring the company had been vacated by consent in 2002, when the petition brought by Sheridan’s mother was dismissed. The court said the claimed new evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence in earlier proceedings, and that a creditor-based restoration claim could also have been brought then.
The appeal court upheld the High Court judge’s application of the rule in Henderson v Henderson. It concluded the latest application was an impermissible collateral attack on the earlier decision and that the appeal grounds were not made out. The court’s decision concerned the procedural bar to bringing this restoration application; it did not make a new order restoring the company.
On costs, the court gave a provisional view that Sheridan should pay the respondents’ appeal costs, to be taxed and ascertained. It allowed him 21 days from electronic delivery of the judgment to notify the Court of Appeal office if he sought a different costs order, after which oral argument would be scheduled.