Murph's Restaurant Ltd., Re [1979] IEHC 1 (5th April, 1979)

Murph's Restaurant Ltd., Re [1979] IEHC 1 (5th April, 1979)

The petitioner was excluded from management and deprived of his livelihood in a manner that was oppressive and in disregard of the mutual trust and equality foundational to the company, amounting to a breakdown of the quasi-partnership relationship. No alternative remedy under s.205 could bring an end to the matters complained of. It is just and equitable to wind up the company.

Citation
[1979] IEHC 1
Parties
Petitioner: Brian Suiter; Respondent: Murph's Restaurants Ltd.; Respondent/shareholder/director: Kevin O'Driscoll; Respondent/shareholder/director: G. Murph O'Driscoll
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Company Winding Up Petition / Final Judgment on Petition and Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Petition granted; company to be wound up.
Legal Topics
Winding Up on Just and Equitable Grounds, Oppression of Minority Shareholders, Exclusion From Management, Quasi Partnership Companies, Remedies Under Companies Act 1963 S.205 and S.213
Company Law Equity Winding Up on Just and Equitable Grounds Oppression of Minority Shareholders Exclusion From Management Quasi Partnership Companies Remedies Under Companies Act 1963 S.205 and S.213

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Suiter

Petitioner

Murph's Restaurants Ltd.

Respondent

Kevin O'Driscoll

Respondent/shareholder/director

G. Murph O'Driscoll

Respondent/shareholder/director

Procedural Posture

Company Winding Up Petition / Final Judgment on Petition and Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the affairs of the company were conducted in an oppressive manner or in disregard of the petitioner's interests as a member
  2. 2 Whether it is just and equitable to wind up the company
  3. 3 Whether alternative remedies under s.205 Companies Act 1963 are appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioner was excluded from management and deprived of his livelihood in a manner that was oppressive and in disregard of the mutual trust and equality foundational to the company, amounting to a breakdown of the quasi-partnership relationship. No alternative remedy under s.205 could bring an end to the matters complained of. It is just and equitable to wind up the company.

Court Disposition

Petition granted; company to be wound up.

Orders

  • A liquidator will be appointed.
  • Notice of the presentation of the petition and the making of the winding up order will be advertised.