The Court of Appeal has reduced to 50% the High Court costs payable personally by liquidator Anthony J. Fitzpatrick to the Revenue Commissioners in a dispute over the winding up of Ballyrider Limited.
In a supplemental judgment delivered on 7 April 2017, Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan said the reduction reflected Mr. Fitzpatrick’s success in overturning consequential orders requiring him to pay more than €100,000 to the replacement liquidator, and the High Court judge’s observation that more active involvement by the Revenue Commissioners might have avoided some of the difficulties.
The Court of Appeal had already dismissed Mr. Fitzpatrick’s appeal against his removal as liquidator and the appointment of Mr. Maloney. It allowed his appeal against orders requiring payments beyond sums still held in the liquidation. The present judgment dealt with costs, following further submissions and a short hearing on 24 March 2017.
The Revenue Commissioners had brought the High Court application, seeking directions and a declaration about costs and expenses charged to the company, or alternatively Mr. Fitzpatrick’s removal. The High Court found the Revenue Commissioners successful and ordered Mr. Fitzpatrick personally to pay their costs. It also ruled that neither side’s costs were properly incurred in the liquidation. The High Court judge considered that Mr. Fitzpatrick had been protecting his own interests in resisting the application.
The Court of Appeal rejected the argument that a liquidator should be exempt from the usual starting point that costs follow the outcome of a case. It said the removal application concerned whether Mr. Fitzpatrick should remain in office, rather than a dispute between the Revenue Commissioners and the company. The court also said the absence of a finding of negligence, misconduct or personal unfitness did not prevent a costs order: the basis for removal was that the liquidation had not been conducted efficiently and cost-effectively.
However, the Court of Appeal considered both Mr. Fitzpatrick’s success on the payment orders and the High Court judge’s comment about the Revenue Commissioners’ role on the Committee of Inspection. It ordered him to pay 50% of the High Court application costs.
For the appeals, the court ordered the Revenue Commissioners to receive 50% of the costs of the first two appeals up to 26 July 2016, treating them as one appeal. It made no order on the costs appeal or on any additional matters in the other appeals after that date.