Bloomberg Developments Ltd., Re. [2002] IESC 56 (12 July 2002)

Bloomberg Developments Ltd., Re. [2002] IESC 56 (12 July 2002)

The High Court was entitled to treat Philips as a notice party and award them costs of appearing on the restoration application, but erred in awarding costs of the underlying action as a penalty in the restoration proceedings, as such costs must be determined in the underlying action itself.

Citation
[2002] IESC 56
Parties
Petitioner: Thomas Goode; Company: Bloomberg Developments Limited; Notice Party/opponent: Philips Electrical (Ireland) Limited; Notice Party: Minister for Finance; Notice Party: Registrar of Companies
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
12 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Company Restoration Petition / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Order on Costs
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; order awarding costs of the underlying action to Philips set aside; order awarding costs of the restoration application to Philips affirmed.
Legal Topics
Restoration to Register of Companies, Costs, Locus Standi, Abuse of Process
Company Law Restoration to Register of Companies Costs Locus Standi Abuse of Process

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Goode

Petitioner

Bloomberg Developments Limited

Company

Philips Electrical (Ireland) Limited

Notice Party/opponent

Minister for Finance

Notice Party

Registrar of Companies

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Company Restoration Petition / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Order on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Philips Electrical (Ireland) Limited had locus standi to oppose the restoration of Bloomberg Developments Limited to the Register of Companies
  2. 2 Whether the High Court was correct in awarding costs of the underlying action to Philips against Bloomberg as a penalty

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court was entitled to treat Philips as a notice party and award them costs of appearing on the restoration application, but erred in awarding costs of the underlying action as a penalty in the restoration proceedings, as such costs must be determined in the underlying action itself.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; order awarding costs of the underlying action to Philips set aside; order awarding costs of the restoration application to Philips affirmed.

Orders

  • Order awarding costs of the underlying action to Philips against Bloomberg set aside.
  • Order awarding costs of the restoration application to Philips affirmed.