The High Court has ordered P. Shiels Plant Hire Limited to provide security for Meath County Council’s costs in its ongoing case against the local authority. Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered the judgment on 9 February 2016.
The company alleges breach of contract and unlawful interference with its commercial or economic interests arising from an online quotation or tendering system in which the Council participated. The court’s decision concerned the Council’s application for security for costs; it did not determine the underlying allegations.
The judge applied section 52 of the Companies Act 2014. The application had been brought under section 390 of the 1963 Act, but the court held that the 2014 provision applied to the unfinished application and replicated the earlier provision’s wording.
The court found there was good reason to believe the company would be unable to pay the Council’s costs if the Council succeeded in defending the claim. The company had filed no annual returns, including accounts, with the Companies Registration Office since the end of 2007. The judge said the court had no meaningful financial information about the company, despite the company’s explanation that fraud had prevented it from filing returns.
The Council had found no evidence that the company continued to trade. In an affidavit, company director Mr Sheils referred to the company’s financial predicament and its inability to trade, while also describing it as trading despite its difficulties. The judge considered the statements inconsistent. He also said the company had supplied no financial evidence to support its claim that the Council’s alleged conduct contributed to its financial position.
The company argued that delay in seeking security was a reason to refuse the application. The plenary summons had issued on 27 April 2011, and the Council’s motion for security issued on 4 April 2014. The judge said delay could be relevant, but did not automatically bar an order. He weighed it alongside the company’s failure to provide financial information and the other circumstances of the case.
The company also argued that the dispute raised a point of law of exceptional public importance. The court rejected that submission, describing the dispute as concerning alleged breach of contract and interference with commercial or economic interests. It said the likelihood of public attention because a local authority was involved did not itself make resolution a matter of public interest.
The court granted the order sought by the Council. The judgment does not specify the amount or deadline for security, and the supplied text does not state whether proceedings were stayed.