Tuskar Resources plc, Re [2001] IEHC 27; [2001] 1 IR 668 (26th February, 2001)

Tuskar Resources plc, Re [2001] IEHC 27; [2001] 1 IR 668 (26th February, 2001)

The Court refused to appoint an Examiner because Tuskar Resources plc is a pure holding company with no undertaking as a going concern, there was insufficient evidence of a reasonable prospect of survival, and the proposed investment did not relate to the continuation of the existing undertaking but rather to a new business.

Citation
[2001] 1 IR 668
Parties
Petitioner: Tuskar Resources plc; Respondent: Green Sea A/S
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Petition for Appointment of Examiner / Judgment on Application for Appointment of Examiner
Outcome
Petition refused
Legal Topics
Appointment of Examiner, Reasonable Prospect of Survival, Holding Company Examinership, Independent Accountant's Report, Bona Fides in Insolvency Proceedings
Insolvency Law Company Law Appointment of Examiner Reasonable Prospect of Survival Holding Company Examinership Independent Accountant's Report Bona Fides in Insolvency Proceedings

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tuskar Resources plc

Petitioner

Green Sea A/S

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition for Appointment of Examiner / Judgment on Application for Appointment of Examiner

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an Examiner can be appointed to a holding company with no trading undertaking
  2. 2 Whether there is a reasonable prospect of survival of the company as a going concern
  3. 3 Sufficiency and independence of the independent accountant's report

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused to appoint an Examiner because Tuskar Resources plc is a pure holding company with no undertaking as a going concern, there was insufficient evidence of a reasonable prospect of survival, and the proposed investment did not relate to the continuation of the existing undertaking but rather to a new business.

Court Disposition

Petition refused

Orders

  • Relief sought for appointment of Examiner refused