The High Court has refused an application to hear in private the entirety of oppression proceedings between Glenman Corporation Limited’s two shareholders and directors. The underlying dispute has not yet been tried, and the court did not decide whether the allegations of oppression are true.
Mr Justice Cregan delivered the ruling on 8 April 2024. The applicant, Micheál Conneally, alleges that his brother, Albert Conneally, conducted the company’s affairs oppressively towards him as a minority shareholder under section 212 of the Companies Act 2014. Albert denies the allegations. The judge said those disputed facts are for the trial of the proceedings.
Albert sought an in camera hearing, arguing that public proceedings could expose commercially sensitive information and harm Glenman’s prospects with lenders, bonding providers, customers, suppliers and prospective public-sector clients. He also cited possible effects on staff and ongoing settlement discussions. Micheál opposed the application.
Mr Justice Cregan held that the statutory exception to public hearings must be strictly construed. Applying the principles in the Supreme Court decisions in Re R. Ltd. and Irish Press v Ingersoll, and considering the later decision in Gilchrist, he concluded that the application failed both parts of the test. The evidence did not establish that public disclosure would be seriously prejudicial to the company’s legitimate interests, and there was nothing to show that a public hearing would prevent justice being done or infringe other constitutional rights warranting privacy.
The judge found that the claimed commercial harms were not supported by sufficiently specific evidence. He also noted that substantial information about Glenman’s dispute with Galway City Council had already entered the public domain, including through earlier court proceedings and media coverage. He declined to redact the identities of the applicant, respondent and company.
The ruling does not require every item of evidence at trial to be heard publicly. The parties may ask the trial judge to hear specific, limited evidence in camera or redact it, for example where a settlement agreement is covered by a confidentiality clause.
The judge also raised a separate concern about whether Glenman’s board had formally authorised proceedings brought in the company’s name, including five judicial review cases. The hearing was adjourned to allow further affidavit evidence on those cases and on whether Micheál agreed with their issue. Mr Justice Cregan said he would hear the parties further on that question; it was not resolved in this ruling.