The High Court dismissed an application by James Morey for authority to make decisions on behalf of Emerald Isle Assurances and Investments Limited in connection with a damages assessment and possible settlement of the company’s claim against its former solicitors.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys gave the ruling on 9 February 2017. The application concerned a jurisdictional question: whether an earlier order in oppression proceedings allowed Mr Morey to seek the additional powers.
Mr Morey sought permission to act for the company at a High Court hearing to assess damages in proceedings against the former solicitors. He also sought permission, if a provisional settlement were agreed, to apply on notice to Timothy Maverley for approval of the settlement and discontinuance of the company’s claim.
His counsel argued that the court could hear the motion under a “liberty to apply” granted by Mr Justice Murphy in 2013. That order had followed a petition under section 205 of the Companies Act 1963, the predecessor provision to section 212 of the Companies Act 2014. The earlier petition related to negotiations and an appeal in the company’s proceedings against Coakley Moloney Solicitors, and included provision to apply for a ruling if settlement was reached.
Mr Justice Humphreys held that the liberty to apply had to be read in the context of the original petition and the relief granted. It was not a liberty to re-enter the proceedings or a free-standing basis to introduce new claims. The proposed powers for the damages assessment went beyond the earlier order’s scope. He noted that the Court of Appeal had indicated that a fresh section 205 petition would likely be needed if the parties could not agree to extend the existing order to cover the assessment.
The judge also found a separate problem in Mr Morey’s position in the Court of Appeal. Mr Morey had applied to have Mr Maverley’s appeal against the 2013 order struck out as moot, saying the purpose of the oppression proceedings had passed. Mr Justice Humphreys considered it unfair for Mr Morey subsequently to argue that those proceedings remained active and could support the expanded relief. Mr Maverley had consequently lost the opportunity to challenge the oppression finding on its merits.
The application was dismissed on either or both grounds. The ruling determined the jurisdictional application before the court; it did not decide the damages assessment or whether any settlement should be approved.