Lennon -v- Gilson & Anor [2015] IEHC 846 (30 July 2015)

Lennon -v- Gilson & Anor [2015] IEHC 846 (30 July 2015)

The first respondent is unfit to be concerned in the management of a company due to dishonesty, irresponsibility, and diversion of funds. The second respondent, though passive and not dishonest, failed to reasonably endeavour to keep abreast of company affairs and did not act responsibly; restriction under section 150 is warranted. Delay in bringing the application does not bar relief as no prejudice is shown.

Citation
[2015] IEHC 846
Parties
Applicant: Gary Lennon; Respondent: Damien Gilson; Respondent: Glenda Gilson
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
30 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Section 150 and 160 Companies Act Application (restriction/disqualification of Directors) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Restriction orders granted against both respondents under section 150 of the Companies Act 1990.
Legal Topics
Director Restriction, Director Disqualification, Passive Director Liability, Fiduciary Duties, Statutory Duties, Delay in Restriction Applications
Company Law Insolvency Law Director Restriction Director Disqualification Passive Director Liability Fiduciary Duties Statutory Duties Delay in Restriction Applications

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 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 14
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gary Lennon

Applicant

Damien Gilson

Respondent

Glenda Gilson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Section 150 and 160 Companies Act Application (restriction/disqualification of Directors) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents should be restricted/disqualified under sections 150 and 160 of the Companies Act 1990
  2. 2 Whether the second respondent, as a passive director, acted honestly and responsibly
  3. 3 Effect of delay in bringing restriction application

Ratio Decidendi

The first respondent is unfit to be concerned in the management of a company due to dishonesty, irresponsibility, and diversion of funds. The second respondent, though passive and not dishonest, failed to reasonably endeavour to keep abreast of company affairs and did not act responsibly; restriction under section 150 is warranted. Delay in bringing the application does not bar relief as no prejudice is shown.

Court Disposition

Restriction orders granted against both respondents under section 150 of the Companies Act 1990.

Orders

  • First respondent restricted from acting as director or officer of any company for five years unless company meets section 150(3) requirements.
  • Second respondent restricted from acting as director or officer of any company for five years unless company meets section 150(3) requirements.