O'Reilly v. O'Connor [2005] IEHC 255 (20 July 2005)
Order 74 applies to company winding-up and authorizes the liquidator's application. The agreements were not unconscionable; the respondent negotiated to avoid cross-examination and received consideration. The respondent is liable for the agreed sums, and judgment is entered accordingly.
- Citation
- [2005] IEHC 255
- Parties
- Applicant: Patrick Dermott O'Reilly (Official Liquidator); Respondent: John O'Connor
- Jurisdiction
- Ireland
- Judgment Date
- 20 July 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Company Liquidation Application / Judgment on Notice of Motion for Entry of Judgment
- Outcome
- judgment for applicant
- Legal Topics
- Liquidation, Director Liability, Enforcement of Settlement Agreements, Unconscionable Bargains, Consideration
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Patrick Dermott O'Reilly (Official Liquidator)
Applicant
John O'Connor
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Company Liquidation Application / Judgment on Notice of Motion for Entry of Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent is liable under the settlement agreements for company debts and asset purchase
- 2 Whether Order 41, rule 15 applies to prevent judgment
- 3 Whether the agreements constitute an unconscionable bargain
Ratio Decidendi
Order 74 applies to company winding-up and authorizes the liquidator's application. The agreements were not unconscionable; the respondent negotiated to avoid cross-examination and received consideration. The respondent is liable for the agreed sums, and judgment is entered accordingly.
Court Disposition
judgment for applicant
Orders
- Judgment entered against John O'Connor in the sum of €139,835.35
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment