The High Court rejected Gary Lennon’s challenge to an expert determination in a dispute over fees charged during the voluntary liquidations of Beauty Holdings Limited and Hairspray Wholesalers Limited. The court held that the expert had completed the task the parties agreed to refer to him. It said liquidator Jim Luby was entitled to require Lennon’s consent to judgment for the sums determined by the expert, and would hear counsel on the precise orders.
Luby, a chartered accountant appointed at creditors’ meetings in May 2014, sought recovery of fees he said had been overpaid. He claimed €122,126 plus VAT in respect of Beauty and €31,677.42 in respect of Hairspray. Lennon, who had been appointed liquidator by the companies’ members in May 2013, described himself as an insolvency practitioner or accountant.
The parties’ December 2017 agreement appointed Jim Stafford, a chartered accountant, as an independent expert. Among other issues, Stafford was to determine what fee would reasonably have been charged given that the companies were likely to be, and proved to be, insolvent. His March 2018 determination found issues (a) to (c) in Lennon’s favour. On issue (d), he concluded that Lennon should have recognised after about 12 hours’ work across the two companies that reconciling their records would not produce reliable accounts, and advised the directors accordingly.
Lennon argued that Stafford had not followed his instructions, had not considered relevant records and an affidavit, and had not issued a final determination. The court rejected those objections. It found the agreement did not require Luby or his solicitors to provide documents generated by Lennon, and Stafford could have requested further material if he needed it. The judge also noted that Lennon had not used the agreement’s route to apply to the court or challenge Stafford in proceedings.
The judge said Stafford had completed the agreed task. Although Stafford had offered to consider further correspondence, any fresh examination would require a new agreement. The court accepted that Luby had a duty to bring the matter to a conclusion, having regard to the companies’ creditors.
The judgment did not set out the final form of the orders: it concluded that Luby was entitled to orders and said counsel would be heard to specify them.