The High Court refused Martin McCaughey’s application to represent McCaughey Developments Limited in proceedings challenging the appointment of a receiver. Mr Justice Gilligan said he was obliged to follow existing Supreme Court authority on company representation.
Declan McDonald was appointed receiver over the company’s assets by Danske Bank on 20 December 2013. The appointment was made under a floating charge granted to National Irish Bank in 1998. The judgment records an allegation that facilities exceeding €8 million had been advanced to the company.
McCaughey, identified in the judgment as a director and majority shareholder, argued that the company could not afford legal representation and risked being dissolved if it could not challenge the receiver’s appointment. He also disputed the charge, alleging it had been altered after the receiver’s appointment and that the registered charge was a collateral stamped deed rather than the original.
The court considered authorities on whether an unqualified person may represent a company. It noted that exceptions had been recognised in rare circumstances, including a case where denying representation would bring an action to a halt in a way destructive of the interests of justice. It also reviewed approaches in other jurisdictions, some more flexible than the Irish rule.
Gilligan said he had sympathy for the defendants’ position and acknowledged that, without funding, the company’s challenge might never be considered. He observed that the issue could merit clarification in exceptional cases where a director and significant shareholder sought to advance a bona fide, arguable point.
However, he concluded that he was constrained by the Supreme Court decision in *Battle v Irish Art Promotion Centre Limited* and by Fennelly J’s later account of the law in *In the Matter of Applications for Orders in Relation to Costs in Intended Proceedings by Stella Coffey & Ors*. The general rule, as described in the judgment, is that a company is a separate legal person and must be represented by a qualified solicitor or barrister. The court therefore refused McCaughey’s application. The ruling addressed who could speak for the company; it did not decide the merits of the challenge to the receiver’s appointment.