Farrell -v- Balzarini & Anor [2007] IEHC 424 (03 December 2007)
The amended s. 150(4B) of the Companies Act, 1990, as inserted by s. 11(1) of the Investment Funds, Companies and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 2006, does not apply to applications commenced before its enactment because there is no clear legislative intention for retrospective application. The applicant is entitled to the costs of the application but not to the costs of investigation as remuneration.
- Citation
- [2007] IEHC 424
- Parties
- Applicant: Pearse Farrell, Liquidator; Respondent: Emilio Balzarini; Respondent: Prescilla Balzarini
- Jurisdiction
- Ireland
- Judgment Date
- 03 December 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Company Law Application (liquidation) / Judgment on Application for Director Restriction and Costs
- Outcome
- Restriction orders made against respondents; costs of application awarded to applicant; claim for investigation costs refused.
- Legal Topics
- Director Restriction, Liquidator's Costs, Retrospective Legislation, Interpretation of Statutes
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Pearse Farrell, Liquidator
Applicant
Emilio Balzarini
Respondent
Prescilla Balzarini
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Company Law Application (liquidation) / Judgment on Application for Director Restriction and Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondents should be restricted from acting as directors under s. 150 of the Companies Act, 1990
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to costs of the application and costs of investigation under s. 150(4B) as amended by s. 11(1) of the Investment Funds, Companies and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 2006
- 3 Whether the amended s. 150(4B) applies to applications commenced before its enactment
Ratio Decidendi
The amended s. 150(4B) of the Companies Act, 1990, as inserted by s. 11(1) of the Investment Funds, Companies and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 2006, does not apply to applications commenced before its enactment because there is no clear legislative intention for retrospective application. The applicant is entitled to the costs of the application but not to the costs of investigation as remuneration.
Court Disposition
Restriction orders made against respondents; costs of application awarded to applicant; claim for investigation costs refused.
Orders
- Respondents restricted from acting as directors or secretaries for five years unless statutory requirements are met.
- Respondents to pay costs of the application, jointly and severally, to be taxed in default of agreement.
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