The High Court has refused an application by Veale Wasbrough Vizards LLP to set aside service of a liquidator’s application concerning assets allegedly transferred from Irish Gold and Silver Bullion Ltd. It ruled that leave to serve outside Ireland was not required for this type of application within the company’s winding up.
Mr Justice Cregan’s judgment, delivered on 31 July 2024, concerned two procedural motions. The firm sought a declaration that service was ineffective. Liquidator Myles Kirby sought to amend the title of the proceedings by removing the word “originating”. The court did not decide whether the firm must return money or gold.
Irish Gold and Silver Bullion Ltd was put into liquidation by the High Court in June 2021, with Mr Kirby appointed liquidator. The judgment records an earlier High Court decision disqualifying one of the company’s directors, Mr Wickham, for seven years after findings concerning the company’s management.
Mr Kirby’s section 608 application seeks orders requiring the firm to deliver any gold bars in its possession and pay €84,250.27 and £66,673 to the liquidator. The judgment says the firm had provided legal services to Mr Wickham personally, apparently paid for by the company, and had not returned the requested sums. It also records that the firm had indicated it would release a gold bar upon payment of certain fees, but had not done so. These matters are background to the application; the court was not deciding the recovery claim in this judgment.
The firm argued that, as an England and Wales partnership based outside Ireland, it could only be served after the liquidator obtained leave under Order 11 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. Mr Kirby accepted that he had mistakenly begun the application using an originating notice of motion, explaining the error as inadvertence. He maintained that the section 608 application was an insolvency motion within the existing winding up, not a new plenary proceeding requiring leave for service abroad.
The judge held that the Irish High Court already had jurisdiction over the winding up and that section 608 applications were made within that process. He interpreted “any person” in section 608 as including people or entities resident abroad, and concluded that Order 11 leave was not required. He also said affected parties should receive notice and an opportunity to be heard, and found that the firm had received sufficient notice through service of the documents at its London office.
The court refused the firm’s application to deem service ineffective. It granted the liquidator’s amendment, directing that the proceedings be titled “Notice of Motion” and that the record number be changed to one within the winding-up proceedings. The judge said the parties would be heard on the further steps needed to progress the section 608 application.