Permanent TSB plc & Ors v Skoczylas & Ors [2019] IESC 78 (05 November 2019)

Permanent TSB plc & Ors v Skoczylas & Ors [2019] IESC 78 (05 November 2019)

The Supreme Court held that the correct test for granting an interlocutory injunction restraining the commencement of proceedings is the Marubeni Komatsu prima facie case standard, not the lower Campus Oil arguability threshold. The Court found that the respondents had established a strong prima facie case that the s.160(7) notice was invalid because it failed to specify the grounds for the intended application, as required by law. The injunction did not constitute an impermissible denial of access to the courts, as the restriction was limited, justified, and the appellants retained other avenues to litigate their claims.

Citation
[2019] IESC 78
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Permanent TSB plc; Plaintiff/respondent: Alan Cook; Plaintiff/respondent: Jeremy Masding; Plaintiff/respondent: Kevin Murphy; Plaintiff/respondent: David McCarthy; Plaintiff/respondent: Bernard Collins; Plaintiff/respondent: Ray MacSharry; Plaintiff/respondent: Margaret Hayes; Plaintiff/respondent: Emer Daly; Plaintiff/respondent: Sandy Kinney; Plaintiff/respondent: Pat Ryan; Plaintiff/respondent: Roy Keenan; Defendant/appellant: Piotr Skoczylas; Defendant/appellant: Scotchstone Capital Fund Limited; Defendant/appellant: Gerard Dowling; Defendant/appellant: Padraig McManus; Defendant/appellant: Georg Haug; Defendant/appellant: John Paul McGann; Defendant/appellant: Tibor Neugebauer; Defendant/appellant: Muriel Scorer
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
05 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Director Disqualification, Injunctions, Notice Requirements, Abuse of Process, Access to Courts
Company Law Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Director Disqualification Injunctions Notice Requirements Abuse of Process Access to Courts

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Permanent TSB plc

Plaintiff/respondent

Alan Cook

Plaintiff/respondent

Jeremy Masding

Plaintiff/respondent

Kevin Murphy

Plaintiff/respondent

David McCarthy

Plaintiff/respondent

Bernard Collins

Plaintiff/respondent

Ray MacSharry

Plaintiff/respondent

Margaret Hayes

Plaintiff/respondent

Emer Daly

Plaintiff/respondent

Sandy Kinney

Plaintiff/respondent

Pat Ryan

Plaintiff/respondent

Roy Keenan

Plaintiff/respondent

Piotr Skoczylas

Defendant/appellant

Scotchstone Capital Fund Limited

Defendant/appellant

Gerard Dowling

Defendant/appellant

Padraig McManus

Defendant/appellant

Georg Haug

Defendant/appellant

John Paul McGann

Defendant/appellant

Tibor Neugebauer

Defendant/appellant

Muriel Scorer

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct test for granting an interlocutory injunction restraining the issuance of proceedings for director disqualification under s.160 of the Companies Act 1990?
  2. 2 Did the appellants' s.160(7) notice comply with statutory requirements?
  3. 3 Is an interlocutory injunction restraining such proceedings a permissible restriction on access to the courts?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the correct test for granting an interlocutory injunction restraining the commencement of proceedings is the Marubeni Komatsu prima facie case standard, not the lower Campus Oil arguability threshold. The Court found that the respondents had established a strong prima facie case that the s.160(7) notice was invalid because it failed to specify the grounds for the intended application, as required by law. The injunction did not constitute an impermissible denial of access to the courts, as the restriction was limited, justified, and the appellants retained other avenues to litigate their claims.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The interlocutory injunction restraining the appellants from issuing proceedings under s.160 of the Companies Act 1990 is affirmed.