The High Court declined to wind up WFS Forestry Ireland Limited because no person had been proposed or had consented to act as liquidator. Mr Justice Quinn said on 18 May 2023 that, although the court had jurisdiction to order a winding up and the evidence of insolvency was undisputed, there was no clear purpose in making the order without someone to carry out the liquidation.
The hearing followed an investigation under section 747 of the Companies Act 2014. The court had appointed inspector Declan DeLacey in July 2022 to examine the company’s affairs. An interim report said the company had received at least €7.1 million from investors and could not repay it. The inspector reported that Christmas-tree crops described to investors either did not exist or were on land in which the company had no interest.
In an affidavit, the inspector said substantially all funds received by WFS Forestry and WFS Ireland Property Services Limited had been used for purposes other than those intended. He reported transfers to companies associated with the company’s sole director and shareholder, Craig Hands, to Hands and his wife, and to people described as salespeople. The inspector said the use of funds after some transfers remained to be established. These were the inspector’s reported findings at an interim stage, not findings made against people who had not participated in the hearing.
The inspector also reported that the company and its officers had not cooperated with the investigation or provided access to company records. He said court orders requiring records from several related companies had not been complied with. Google had provided some information under unopposed orders but opposed access to stored customer data, raising arguments involving data-protection and privacy rules. Those issues had not been decided.
The inspector considered liquidation appropriate if a liquidator were willing to act, but said substantial resources could be needed to investigate and recover assets. The Department of Justice had paid €504,328.84 towards the inspection and said it would not fund liquidation costs. The Corporate Enforcement Authority said it did not intend to petition to wind up the company on public-interest grounds.
The judge held that making a winding-up order without a liquidator would serve no useful purpose in this case. Creditors and other eligible parties could still seek a winding up through other statutory routes. The decision did not prevent a later petition or application.
The court did not decide whether to limit the inspector’s further work. It directed him to provide a second interim report on the remaining issues, likely process and costs, including the dispute with Google and possible proceedings abroad. The case was to return for mention one week after the judgment so a deadline for that report could be set.