Hughes v. Duffy & Anor [2005] IEHC 145 (19 April 2005)

Hughes v. Duffy & Anor [2005] IEHC 145 (19 April 2005)

The inordinate and inexcusable delay in bringing the application would breach respondents' constitutional right to fair procedures; balance of justice is against permitting the application to proceed.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] IEHC 145
Parties
Applicant: David Hughes; Respondent: Seamus Duffy; Respondent: Eugene Hanratty
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
19 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 150 of the Companies Act 1990 / Judgment on Preliminary Objection (delay)
Outcome
application struck out
Legal Topics
Director Restriction, Delay in Proceedings, Fair Procedures
Company Law Insolvency Law Director Restriction Delay in Proceedings Fair Procedures

Source-derived case record

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Hughes

Applicant

Seamus Duffy

Respondent

Eugene Hanratty

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Section 150 of the Companies Act 1990 / Judgment on Preliminary Objection (delay)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether inordinate and inexcusable delay in bringing the application justifies dismissal
  2. 2 Whether permitting the application would breach respondents' constitutional right to fair procedures

Ratio Decidendi

The inordinate and inexcusable delay in bringing the application would breach respondents' constitutional right to fair procedures; balance of justice is against permitting the application to proceed.

Court Disposition

application struck out

Orders

  • application against each respondent struck out