The Court of Appeal has dismissed Arnaud Gaultier’s appeal against a High Court refusal to grant interim relief to him and Sup Pliable Limited in a dispute over company stock.
In a judgment delivered on 29 April 2024, Mr Justice Charles Meenan said the appeal was unsustainable. Justices Binchy and O’Moore agreed. The court’s decision concerned the interlocutory application and the appeal; it did not determine the underlying stock dispute or establish liability for the alleged loss.
The proceedings began with a plenary summons issued in April 2023. Gaultier and the company sought damages from an accountant and a solicitor retained by his wife, Louise Swords, alleging professional negligence in their dealings with her. The judgment records Gaultier’s belief that company stock had not been accounted for. He sought, among other interim orders, payments of €40,000 by each respondent into court to cover potential loss. The appeal judgment described that kind of payment before liability is established as relief unknown to law, and another requested order as unintelligible.
The High Court refused the interim application in May 2023. It held that the company could not be represented in court by Gaultier as its director, applying the rule in Battle. The High Court later refused his request to revisit that ruling. The Court of Appeal found no strong reason to reopen it and said the further arguments sought to re-litigate the application.
Gaultier argued on appeal that the rule was inconsistent with European Union law and the European Convention on Human Rights. The court rejected those arguments, relying on earlier Supreme Court decisions concerning representation of parties and the rule’s application to single-member companies. It also rejected the recusal applications that were pursued, finding they did not meet the established test. The judgment records that Gaultier did not pursue his application for Justice O’Moore’s recusal.
The court criticised the conduct of the litigation, including an email in which Gaultier linked possible settlement to the prospect of further proceedings and legal costs. It said the proceedings had imposed financial costs on respondents and used significant court time.
The court dismissed the appeal. Its provisional view was that the respondents were entitled to their appeal costs, including reserved costs. Gaultier was given 14 days to file submissions of up to 1,000 words disputing costs; the respondents could reply within 14 days thereafter. The judgment does not record a final costs order.