Pyne -v- Van Deventer & Ors [2012] IEHC 263 (18 May 2012)

Pyne -v- Van Deventer & Ors [2012] IEHC 263 (18 May 2012)

The evidence did not establish that the fourth named respondent habitually directed the directors or that they were accustomed to act on his instructions; his involvement was explicable by his role as company secretary and employee, not as a shadow director.

Citation
[2012] IEHC 263
Parties
Applicant: Conor Pyne; Respondent: Gerard Vandeventer; Respondent: Ben Vandeventer; Respondent: Gerrit Earnest Kruis; Respondent: Alfred Schoenmakers
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
18 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Company Law Application Under S.150 Companies Act 1990 / High Court Judgment on Preliminary Issue
Outcome
Application against the fourth named respondent dismissed; preliminary issue decided in his favour.
Legal Topics
Shadow Director, Restriction Order, Company Liquidation, Directors' Duties
Company Law Insolvency Law Shadow Director Restriction Order Company Liquidation Directors' Duties

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Conor Pyne

Applicant

Gerard Vandeventer

Respondent

Ben Vandeventer

Respondent

Gerrit Earnest Kruis

Respondent

Alfred Schoenmakers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Company Law Application Under S.150 Companies Act 1990 / High Court Judgment on Preliminary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the fourth named respondent, Alfred Schoenmakers, was a shadow director of Devona Limited for the purposes of s.150 Companies Act 1990

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not establish that the fourth named respondent habitually directed the directors or that they were accustomed to act on his instructions; his involvement was explicable by his role as company secretary and employee, not as a shadow director.

Court Disposition

Application against the fourth named respondent dismissed; preliminary issue decided in his favour.

Orders

  • No order made against the fourth named respondent under s.150 Companies Act 1990.