The High Court has struck out proceedings brought by Arnaud D. Gaultier over wine detained by the Revenue Commissioners in 2006, ruling that the pleaded claims belonged to a company that had been dissolved before the case began.
In a judgment delivered on 6 July 2017, Mr Justice Noonan also dismissed a separate claim against five defendants over the plaintiff’s alleged inability to issue proceedings on the company’s behalf. He found that the company had been dissolved by then and, in any event, a director could not represent a company in court proceedings.
The court heard three motions: the Revenue’s application to strike out the proceedings; a similar application by the Minister for Finance, the Courts Service, the Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General, which also relied on delay and the failure to serve a statement of claim; and Gaultier’s application for an interlocutory injunction. The defendants’ strike-out motions were heard first.
The dispute arose after the Revenue detained wine imported by Loire Valley Ltd and served a seizure notice in September 2006. The judgment said the Revenue had paid the company €25,000 and later tendered a further €80,000 cheque as full and final settlement. The cheque was not cashed. The company was dissolved in April 2012 after failing to file annual returns.
Justice Noonan found that the pleadings concerned the company’s wine, business losses and negotiations with the Revenue. A director or member could not bring a claim for a wrong suffered by the company, and any claim for personal loss tied to the company’s reduced value was also unsustainable. Gaultier’s submission that a supplier had transferred ownership of some or all of the wine to him in 2008 did not alter the court’s assessment of the case as pleaded.
The other five defendants had never received a statement of claim, despite an earlier court order extending the time to serve one. The judge found the delay inordinate and inexcusable and said the balance of justice required dismissal, including because the passage of time risked prejudice to the defendants.
The injunction application sought to prevent the Revenue sheriff from collecting unpaid taxes from Gaultier. The judge said it had no connection to the pleaded dispute and would have been dismissed even without the other findings. The proceedings were struck out; the judgment does not record a separate order on costs.