The High Court has rejected two motions brought by James M. Guerin in the liquidation of Doherty Advertising Limited, holding that he had agreed to pay the company’s liquidator €38,000 in settlement of claims against him.
In a judgment delivered on 16 June 2006, Mr Justice McGovern found that the settlement terms were clear and unambiguous. The sum was to be paid over three years from court approval, with interest at 4% a year running from 15 July 2004. The judge said Guerin was not entitled to repudiate the agreement or add conditions that had not been agreed.
The dispute followed a December 2004 order approving a proposed settlement under section 231(1) of the Companies Act 1963. The liquidator said the order formalised an agreement already reached. Guerin argued that any agreement depended on confidentiality and on the directors repaying money connected with a company bank account, and that a formal agreement should be signed after legal advice.
The judge relied on correspondence between the parties’ solicitors, including a letter confirming agreement to the settlement terms, and notes of meetings kept by the liquidator’s firm. He rejected Guerin’s explanation for omitting the alleged conditions from a letter he had sent to a newspaper editor, and rejected his claim that his solicitors had advised against signing. The court held that the liquidator could pursue Guerin for the money.
Guerin also sought the name of a person who had allegedly said he received “wads of cash in a restaurant”. The judge refused disclosure, finding no authority that required the court-appointed liquidator to provide that information to Guerin.
The court refused Guerin’s application to remove the liquidator. It held that Guerin was not qualified to bring it because, for the purposes of the application, his interests were adverse to those of the liquidation’s creditors. Separately, the judge found he had not shown sufficient cause or established the liquidator’s unfitness.
The judge also rejected a request to declare the liquidator in contempt. The complaint concerned a letter that referred to an order dated 7 February 2005, although the parties agreed the relevant order was dated 16 December 2004. The judge described the letter as heavy-handed and containing a mistaken date, but said Guerin had been legally represented and rejected the application.
The court dismissed both motions and declared that Guerin was not entitled to the relief sought.