The Court of Appeal has dismissed three appeals brought by former Decobake Limited director Paul Coyle and affirmed orders concerning the company’s provisional liquidation.
The appeals concerned the High Court’s approval of €79,308.91 in provisional liquidator Declan De Lacy’s remuneration, including outlays and VAT; refusal of Coyle’s request for discovery of documents; and refusal to postpone the fee application until other proceedings were resolved. The High Court had also allowed De Lacy’s solicitors to receive €38,092.40 on account of legal costs, subject to taxation and an undertaking to repay any excess.
The Court of Appeal said the remuneration application was supported by a detailed schedule of work and time, and evidence addressing the statutory criteria, including the complexity of the provisional liquidation. It noted that the fees had been reduced by 7.5% following discussions with the Collector General and that the rates charged were below the rates used as a guide in earlier cases.
Coyle had argued that the fee application should be delayed, that the court had not scrutinised the claimed amount sufficiently, and that further documents were needed. The judgment records that, in the High Court, Coyle said he was seeking “no costs at all” rather than disputing the amount claimed. The appeal court concluded that the High Court had considered the evidence and that Coyle had not identified material undermining the fee application.
The court found no basis to order discovery in the fee-approval process. It said the application was not a conventional dispute between parties and that the liquidator had to provide appropriate evidence for the court’s supervisory review. The court also considered discovery of legal-cost records unnecessary because those costs had been referred for taxation.
The court said the fee-approval process was not the proper forum for complaints about other contractors or the conduct of the liquidation. It noted that the Companies Act 2014 provides other routes for a creditor or contributory with legitimate concerns to ask the court to determine questions arising in a winding up or, where cause is shown, to remove a liquidator.
The court affirmed the High Court orders and proposed that De Lacy’s appeal costs be treated as costs in the winding up, with recovery against Coyle if they could not be recovered there. It allowed either party 14 days from electronic delivery of the judgment to seek a different costs order; otherwise, a short costs hearing would be arranged.