The High Court has declined to let a restriction application against former Eyecom Technologies Limited director Alan Browne proceed, after finding that the liquidator brought it at least 13 months beyond the statutory deadline.
Mr Justice Max Barrett said the liquidation began on 14 January 2013 and the liquidator’s first report to the Director of Corporate Enforcement was filed on 14 August 2013, slightly late. The application should then have been brought between 14 November 2013 and 14 January 2014. Its notice of motion was dated 18 February 2015.
The liquidator said he had misplaced a letter from the Director’s office stating that he had not been relieved of the obligation to apply. The judge described the mistake as inadvertent and said the liquidator had acted honestly after discovering it. But he found that the court should not extend time under section 56(2) of the Company Law Enforcement Act 2001, and declined to allow the proceedings to continue.
Browne argued that the delay meant the case should not proceed, relying on the statutory timetable and the European Convention on Human Rights. The court decided the section 56(2) issue was sufficient and did not need to determine the separate Article 6 argument. It also noted that Browne was not responsible for the delay and had endured at least 13 months of uncertainty. His wife had become unemployed, and the home where they lived with their three young children was facing repossession proceedings.
The application alleged that Browne allowed Eyecom to accumulate about €185,000 in liabilities to the Revenue Commissioners between 2009 and 2012. The judgment said the company had been in financial difficulty from 2008, became seriously unstable by 2010, and lost the prospect of a major tender in 2011. Director remuneration and expenses totalled €43,000 in 2012.
The court did not adjudicate on the section 150 application because it had already ruled that the proceedings could not continue. For completeness, however, Judge Barrett said that if required to decide the substance, he would have found that Browne had not shown a lack of honesty or responsibility warranting a restriction declaration. The judgment noted that Browne had paid €50,000 of an approximately €76,000 tax bill arising from the company’s activities after its liquidation.