Middleview Ltd & Companies Acts (No.2) [2016] IEHC 143 (29 January 2016)

Middleview Ltd & Companies Acts (No.2) [2016] IEHC 143 (29 January 2016)

The combination of errors in the Petition, Ms. Magee’s affidavit, and Mr. Malbasha’s affidavit left the court with a misleading impression regarding the appointment of receivers and the timing of the company’s strike off and dissolution. The court found that receivers were appointed on 28th March 2014, prior to dissolution, and that the affidavit evidence was inaccurate and misleading, though not intentionally so.

Citation
[2016] IEHC 143
Parties
Company: Middleview Limited; Petitioner: National Asset Management Agency (NAMA)/National Asset Loan Management Ltd (NALM); Director/respondent: Gareth Kelleher
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
29 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Company Restoration Application / Post Judgment Review Application
Outcome
Application to review judgment refused
Legal Topics
Company Strike Off, Company Dissolution, Appointment of Receivers, Restoration to Register, Affidavit Evidence, Judicial Review of Judgment
Company Law Company Strike Off Company Dissolution Appointment of Receivers Restoration to Register Affidavit Evidence Judicial Review of Judgment

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 1 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Middleview Limited

Company

National Asset Management Agency (NAMA)/National Asset Loan Management Ltd (NALM)

Petitioner

Gareth Kelleher

Director/respondent

Procedural Posture

Company Restoration Application / Post Judgment Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court's findings regarding Mr. Malbasha's affidavit were based on erroneous understanding
  2. 2 Whether the receivers were appointed before the company was struck off
  3. 3 Whether misleading evidence was presented to the court

Ratio Decidendi

The combination of errors in the Petition, Ms. Magee’s affidavit, and Mr. Malbasha’s affidavit left the court with a misleading impression regarding the appointment of receivers and the timing of the company’s strike off and dissolution. The court found that receivers were appointed on 28th March 2014, prior to dissolution, and that the affidavit evidence was inaccurate and misleading, though not intentionally so.

Court Disposition

Application to review judgment refused

Orders

  • No revision of the relevant paragraphs of the judgment as requested by the petitioner