Squash (Ireland) Ltd. , Re [2001] IESC 200; [2001] 3 IR 35 (8 February 2001)
The appellants acted honestly and responsibly throughout their tenure as directors, sought and followed professional advice, and their conduct in relation to the subscriptions, while open to criticism, did not amount to irresponsibility under s.150(2)(a) of the Companies Act 1990. The High Court order restricting them was not justified.
- Citation
- [2001] 3 IR 35
- Parties
- Appellant: David Balbirnie; Appellant: Trevor Watkins; Respondent: Joseph Moreau
- Jurisdiction
- Ireland
- Judgment Date
- 08 February 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Company Law Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order Under S.150 Companies Act 1990
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Director Restriction, Responsibility of Directors, Insolvency, Companies Act 1990 S.150
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
David Balbirnie
Appellant
Trevor Watkins
Appellant
Joseph Moreau
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Company Law Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order Under S.150 Companies Act 1990
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellants acted responsibly as directors under s.150(2)(a) of the Companies Act 1990
- 2 Whether the sending of subscription requests after knowledge of impending liquidation amounted to irresponsibility
Ratio Decidendi
The appellants acted honestly and responsibly throughout their tenure as directors, sought and followed professional advice, and their conduct in relation to the subscriptions, while open to criticism, did not amount to irresponsibility under s.150(2)(a) of the Companies Act 1990. The High Court order restricting them was not justified.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- High Court order restricting appellants under s.150 Companies Act 1990 reversed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment