Bula Holdings & ors -v- Roche & ors [2009 IESC 36 (03 April 2009)

Bula Holdings & ors -v- Roche & ors [2009 IESC 36 (03 April 2009)

No arguable ground of appeal exists as the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence of fraud or misrepresentation sufficient to justify setting aside previous judgments; the application is an abuse of process and intended to delay enforcement of costs orders.

Citation
[1955] IR 170
Parties
Plaintiff: Bula Holdings; Plaintiff: Bula Trust; Plaintiff: Loire Investments; Plaintiff: Bula Limited; Plaintiff: Michael J. Wymes; Plaintiff: Michael T. Wymes; Plaintiff: Richard F. Wood; Defendant: Thomas J. Roche; Defendant: Crindle Investments; Defendant: Francis Plunkett Dillon
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
03 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Supreme Court Application for Extension of Time for Service of Notice of Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed; extension of time refused; High Court order affirmed.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time for Appeal, Abuse of Process, Fraud Allegations, Costs Orders, Section 205 Companies Act 1963
Civil Procedure Company Law Extension of Time for Appeal Abuse of Process Fraud Allegations Costs Orders Section 205 Companies Act 1963

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bula Holdings

Plaintiff

Bula Trust

Plaintiff

Loire Investments

Plaintiff

Bula Limited

Plaintiff

Michael J. Wymes

Plaintiff

Michael T. Wymes

Plaintiff

Richard F. Wood

Plaintiff

Thomas J. Roche

Defendant

Crindle Investments

Defendant

Francis Plunkett Dillon

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Supreme Court Application for Extension of Time for Service of Notice of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs should be granted an extension of time to serve a Notice of Appeal
  2. 2 Whether an arguable ground of appeal exists regarding alleged fraud and misrepresentation in prior proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings are an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

No arguable ground of appeal exists as the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence of fraud or misrepresentation sufficient to justify setting aside previous judgments; the application is an abuse of process and intended to delay enforcement of costs orders.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; extension of time refused; High Court order affirmed.

Orders

  • Refuse extension of time for service of Notice of Appeal
  • Refuse relief sought in Notice of Motion