Murphy v. Murphy & Ors [2003] IEHC 91 (11 December 2003)
Section 150(4B) of the Companies Act, 1990 does not restrict the court's discretion to award costs to a successful respondent; the liquidator is personally obliged to bring the application and must bear the costs when unsuccessful.
- Citation
- [2003] IEHC 91
- Parties
- Applicant: Stephen Murphy; Respondent: Tom Murphy; Respondent: Brian McGarvey; Respondent: Sean Farrell; Respondent: Bernard Hackett
- Jurisdiction
- Ireland
- Judgment Date
- 11 December 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Application Under Companies Act for Restriction Order / Post Hearing Costs Determination
- Outcome
- Application for costs granted in favour of fourth named respondent.
- Legal Topics
- Liquidator's Obligations, Restriction of Directors, Costs in Company Law Proceedings
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Stephen Murphy
Applicant
Tom Murphy
Respondent
Brian McGarvey
Respondent
Sean Farrell
Respondent
Bernard Hackett
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application Under Companies Act for Restriction Order / Post Hearing Costs Determination
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court retains discretion to award costs to a successful respondent under s.150 of the Companies Act, 1990
- 2 Whether the costs order should be made against the liquidator personally or the company in liquidation
Ratio Decidendi
Section 150(4B) of the Companies Act, 1990 does not restrict the court's discretion to award costs to a successful respondent; the liquidator is personally obliged to bring the application and must bear the costs when unsuccessful.
Court Disposition
Application for costs granted in favour of fourth named respondent.
Orders
- Order for costs of the application under s.150 (including hearing on costs issue) against the applicant (liquidator).
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