The High Court has ordered Bayview Hotel (Waterville) Limited to be wound up, finding that the company could not pay its debts. Ms Justice Butler appointed an official liquidator and ordered the company’s directors to prepare a statement of its affairs.
The petition was brought by Williams Holding Ltd, which claimed €479,249 under a 1986 mortgage debenture. The company did not respond to a statutory demand for payment. Two other creditors supported the petition; two opposed it. Their claims and the competing interests behind them formed part of a wider dispute about the hotel’s ownership, debts and possible sale.
The court did not find the company unable to pay the Williams Holding debt on the basis of the statutory demand. Michael (Haulie) O’Shea, who opposed the petition as a creditor and claimed a 50% interest in the company, said the advance was effectively capital and would be repayable only after a sale of the hotel. Justice Butler said the petitioner had not proved that debt for the purposes of the demand because the conflicting affidavit evidence could not be resolved without cross-examination, which had not been sought. She did not thereby accept O’Shea’s account; she said she would probably reject it if she could decide the factual dispute on the evidence available.
The court separately found that the company was insolvent. Its accounts showed continuing losses and liabilities exceeding recorded assets; it had been unable to meet bank repayments since at least 2015 and had not reopened its hotel after 2020. The judge considered the hotel’s estimated value, but noted a serious unresolved dispute over ownership of part of the premises. Even if the hotel’s value exceeded the company’s liabilities, selling its principal asset to pay debts would leave it unable to continue its business.
O’Shea argued that a voluntary sale could produce a better price and raised concerns about a forced sale. The judge considered agreement between the rival interests unrealistic given the company’s deadlocked board and the parties’ disputes. She did not formally decide the separate “just and equitable” ground, though said she would have been minded to grant the petition on that basis as well.
The winding-up order rests on insolvency under section 569(1)(d) of the Companies Act 2014. The liquidator is to consider creditor claims and address the dispute over title to part of the hotel premises. The judgment did not finally determine the creditors’ claims or O’Shea’s separate case for a 50% shareholding.