The High Court set aside interim protection granted to four O’Flynn companies, discharged the interim examiner and dismissed Carbon Finance Limited’s examinership petition after finding material non-disclosure. In a separate ruling, it granted interlocutory relief to Michael and John O’Flynn, leaving the underlying dispute over loan demands and receiverships for trial.
Ms Justice Irvine delivered judgment on 13 August 2014. The applications concerned four companies named in the examinership proceedings: O’Flynn Construction Co. and three related companies. Carbon had presented its petition on 29 July without an independent accountant’s report (IAR). An earlier order by Mr Justice McGovern had placed the companies under interim court protection and appointed Michael McAteer as interim examiner.
The companies argued that Carbon had not fairly presented the circumstances surrounding its access to financial information and the companies’ cooperation. The judge found that the petition left out material information, including the extent of Carbon’s access to financial records and the companies’ engagement with requests. She also found that Carbon had not disclosed a dispute over how the finance documents governed use of asset-sale proceeds, or a proposal by Michael O’Flynn to restructure personal facilities. The court concluded that Carbon breached its statutory duty of utmost good faith. It set aside the interim protection order and dismissed the petition under section 4A of the Companies (Amendment) Act 1990.
The judge clarified that protection had continued because an IAR was filed on 7 August, and that McAteer remained in place until the court’s decision to discharge him. The court had not yet decided whether an examiner should be appointed; the petition had not reached its full hearing.
In the separate plenary proceedings, the O’Flynns challenged Carbon’s demand letters for immediate repayment of personal loans and subsequent enforcement steps. The judge found they had raised serious issues for trial, including whether the time allowed for payment was sufficient and whether the demands were issued for an improper purpose. She did not accept that an arguable claim had been established that public-law duties owed by NAMA passed to Carbon under the assignment.
Finding damages inadequate and the balance of convenience in the O’Flynns’ favour, the judge granted the interlocutory relief sought in paragraphs 2 to 6 of their motion. This was an interim decision pending trial, not a final determination that the demands or enforcement actions were unlawful. The judgment’s final paragraph does not detail each order made under those paragraphs.