The High Court has struck out an application by barrister Mark Doyle seeking to have himself entered as a 50% shareholder in Donna Ledwidge Holdings Limited, finding that the summary company-law procedure he used was not suitable for resolving the underlying ownership dispute.
Mr Doyle is married to businesswoman Donna Ledwidge, who owns businesses in the women's health and beauty sectors. The parties married in December 2022 and separated in the latter part of 2025. Family law proceedings are ongoing, and the judgment records that Mr Doyle's claimed entitlement to shares in the company is also an issue there.
Mr Doyle's solicitors asserted in January 2026 that the parties had agreed he would become a 50% shareholder in Donna Ledwidge Holdings Limited after another business was incorporated into the group. They said tax and stamp duty issues had delayed formal transfer of the shares. Ms Ledwidge disputes his claimed entitlement.
On February 19, 2026, Mr Doyle issued plenary proceedings seeking a declaration that Ms Ledwidge held half of the company's shares on trust for him and an order requiring her to transfer them. On the same day, he separately commenced proceedings under section 173 of the Companies Act 2014 seeking rectification of the company's register of members.
Mr Justice Quinn explained that section 173 provides a summary procedure allowing the High Court to correct a company's register where a person has an existing right to be registered. It is not generally designed to decide substantial factual disputes about beneficial ownership which require oral evidence or a full trial.
The judge held that Mr Doyle's own case showed no completed share transfer. His claim was that Ms Ledwidge had agreed she would transfer shares once unresolved tax and stamp duty issues were dealt with. His separate plenary proceedings themselves sought orders needed to establish and transfer that interest.
The court therefore found that the section 173 application had been brought prematurely and unnecessarily. It rejected a proposal to leave the proceedings adjourned pending the ownership litigation and proposed striking out the originating notice of motion, with costs and any further orders to be addressed separately.