Judgment: 2021-05-21 · Court archive

Appeal dismissed as Court of Appeal raises concern over liquidation account payments

The court’s supplemental ruling said more than €40,000 had been removed from a liquidator’s account without an explanation in the record. It gave him 14 days to say whether he wished to make submissions on a possible referral to professional and corporate enforcement bodies.

Court of Appeal · [2021] IECA 154

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Anthony J. Fitzpatrick
  • Revenue Commissioners (Respondent)
  • Lucca Food Trading Company Limited
What

The court’s supplemental ruling said more than €40,000 had been removed from a liquidator’s account without an explanation in the record. It gave him 14 days to say whether he wished to make submissions on a possible referral to professional and corporate enforcement bodies.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 8 February 2019

    An interim stay was granted on 8 February 2019 after Mr Fitzpatrick applied to the Court of Appeal. The supplemental ruling said a bank statement was directed to be sent to Revenue by 11 February, but was not provided until 22 February. It showed that more than €40,000 had been removed from the account, leaving €12,168.51. On Revenue’s application, the interim stay was lifted. The court said the judge who granted it had understood the approximately €50,000 was still in the account.

  • 22 March 2019

    The supplemental ruling said the record did not explain how or when the money was removed, who received it, or why it was paid. It said full statements had not been produced for the period from 29 August 2016 to 22 March 2019, and the court could not determine whether payments were made before or after the High Court hearing.

  • 29 August 2016

    The ruling recounted earlier affidavits in which Revenue sought full bank account records. In October 2016, Mr Fitzpatrick said the account balance was €54,272.45 and exhibited a statement showing that balance on 29 August 2016. The Court of Appeal said the High Court hearing about his remuneration and expenses proceeded on the basis that the money remained in the account.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The appeal concerned a High Court order directing Mr Fitzpatrick to pay Revenue Commissioners €42,116.31 by way of dividend within seven days. The High Court had refused a stay on that payment. Its order was made on the basis that more than €50,000 remained in the liquidation account.

The Court of Appeal dismissed liquidator Anthony J. Fitzpatrick’s appeal in a ruling delivered on 21 May 2021, then issued a supplemental ruling raising concerns about payments from the liquidation account of Lucca Food Trading Company Limited. The court gave Mr Fitzpatrick 14 days to notify it if he wished to make submissions on a possible referral of papers to Chartered Accountants Ireland and the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE). It did not make a referral in this ruling.

The appeal concerned a High Court order directing Mr Fitzpatrick to pay Revenue Commissioners €42,116.31 by way of dividend within seven days. The High Court had refused a stay on that payment. Its order was made on the basis that more than €50,000 remained in the liquidation account.

An interim stay was granted on 8 February 2019 after Mr Fitzpatrick applied to the Court of Appeal. The supplemental ruling said a bank statement was directed to be sent to Revenue by 11 February, but was not provided until 22 February. It showed that more than €40,000 had been removed from the account, leaving €12,168.51. On Revenue’s application, the interim stay was lifted. The court said the judge who granted it had understood the approximately €50,000 was still in the account.

The ruling recounted earlier affidavits in which Revenue sought full bank account records. In October 2016, Mr Fitzpatrick said the account balance was €54,272.45 and exhibited a statement showing that balance on 29 August 2016. The Court of Appeal said the High Court hearing about his remuneration and expenses proceeded on the basis that the money remained in the account.

The supplemental ruling said the record did not explain how or when the money was removed, who received it, or why it was paid. It said full statements had not been produced for the period from 29 August 2016 to 22 March 2019, and the court could not determine whether payments were made before or after the High Court hearing.

After the stay was lifted in March 2019, Mr Fitzpatrick paid Revenue the €42,116.31. The court said he appeared to have used some remaining account funds and paid the balance from other sources. It remained concerned that payments of about €52,000 from the account may have been unjustified while his remuneration and expenses were before the High Court. The court also said he had not provided full statements to Revenue or either court, despite his fiduciary duty to Revenue.

The court said any investigation or consequences would be matters for the independent bodies. It invited Mr Fitzpatrick to notify the Court of Appeal Office within 14 days if he wished to make submissions; if he did, an oral hearing would be arranged.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review