Sixth Irish Forestry Fund PLC (In Liquidation) & Ors v Companies Act (Approved) (Rev1) [2021] IEHC 565 (16 August 2021)

Sixth Irish Forestry Fund PLC (In Liquidation) & Ors v Companies Act (Approved) (Rev1) [2021] IEHC 565 (16 August 2021)

The court exercised its discretion under s. 169(1) of the 2015 Act to depart from the general rule, making no order for costs against the applicants due to the test case nature, novel legal issues, efficient conduct, and attenuated public interest, but ordered respondent's costs to be costs in the liquidation.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] IEHC 565
Parties
Applicant: Lar Sheeran; Applicant: Aisling Murphy; Applicant: Richard Mulcahy; Respondent: Alan Fitzpatrick
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
16 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Application Under Companies Act 2014 / Costs Ruling Post Substantive Judgment
Outcome
Application refused; no order for costs against applicants; respondent's costs to be costs in liquidation.
Legal Topics
Liquidation, Court Powers Under Companies Act, Costs Discretion, Public Interest Exception
Company Law Insolvency Law Liquidation Court Powers Under Companies Act Costs Discretion Public Interest Exception

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lar Sheeran

Applicant

Aisling Murphy

Applicant

Richard Mulcahy

Applicant

Alan Fitzpatrick

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Companies Act 2014 / Costs Ruling Post Substantive Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should follow the event after refusal of application under ss. 631 and 684 of Companies Act 2014
  2. 2 Whether public interest exception to general costs rule applies

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its discretion under s. 169(1) of the 2015 Act to depart from the general rule, making no order for costs against the applicants due to the test case nature, novel legal issues, efficient conduct, and attenuated public interest, but ordered respondent's costs to be costs in the liquidation.

Court Disposition

Application refused; no order for costs against applicants; respondent's costs to be costs in liquidation.

Orders

  • Order refusing the application.
  • Order granting respondent his reasonable costs of the application, including reserved costs and costs of submissions, as costs in the liquidation of the companies, to rank accordingly.