Heffernan -v- Murphy & Ors [2013] IEHC 113 (22 February 2013)

Heffernan -v- Murphy & Ors [2013] IEHC 113 (22 February 2013)

The respondents' decision to continue trading after 2 April 2009 was not so imprudent or irresponsible as to warrant restriction under s.150 Companies Act 1990. Their actions were based on reasonable belief, professional advice, and did not materially worsen the position of creditors. Failures in compliance and preferential payments were explained and did not amount to irresponsibility in the circumstances.

Citation
[2013] IEHC 113
Parties
Applicant: Aidan Heffernan; Respondent: Timothy Murphy; Respondent: Michael Murphy; Respondent: Colin Murphy
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
22 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Company Law Application (liquidation/restriction) / High Court Judgment on Application for Restriction of Directors Under S.150 Companies Act 1990
Outcome
Application for restriction refused
Legal Topics
Director Restriction, Liquidation, Insolvency, Directors' Duties, Preferential Payments, Creditors' Interests
Company Law Insolvency Director Restriction Liquidation Directors' Duties Preferential Payments Creditors' Interests

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aidan Heffernan

Applicant

Timothy Murphy

Respondent

Michael Murphy

Respondent

Colin Murphy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Company Law Application (liquidation/restriction) / High Court Judgment on Application for Restriction of Directors Under S.150 Companies Act 1990

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents acted responsibly in the management of the affairs of the company after it became insolvent
  2. 2 Whether the respondents should be subject to restriction under s.150 Companies Act 1990

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents' decision to continue trading after 2 April 2009 was not so imprudent or irresponsible as to warrant restriction under s.150 Companies Act 1990. Their actions were based on reasonable belief, professional advice, and did not materially worsen the position of creditors. Failures in compliance and preferential payments were explained and did not amount to irresponsibility in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Application for restriction refused

Orders

  • Declarations sought under s.150 Companies Act 1990 declined