FF Couriers Ltd & Companies Acts: Keane -v- Day & ors [2016] IEHC 452 (29 July 2016)

FF Couriers Ltd & Companies Acts: Keane -v- Day & ors [2016] IEHC 452 (29 July 2016)

The evidence established that the payments to Mr Day were regular, modest salary payments, not intended as preferential repayment of loans. The presumption of fraudulent preference under section 286(3) was rebutted by Mr Day's credible explanation and the absence of evidence of intent to prefer himself as creditor over other creditors.

Citation
[2016] IEHC 452
Parties
Applicant: Thomas Keane; Respondent: William Day; Respondent: Stephen Fuller; Respondent: Alan Fleming
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
29 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Company Law Application Under Companies Acts / High Court Judgment on Application for Declaration of Fraudulent Preference
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Preference, Director Liability, Liquidation, Connected Persons, Section 286 Companies Act 1963
Company Law Insolvency Law Fraudulent Preference Director Liability Liquidation Connected Persons Section 286 Companies Act 1963

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Keane

Applicant

William Day

Respondent

Stephen Fuller

Respondent

Alan Fleming

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Company Law Application Under Companies Acts / High Court Judgment on Application for Declaration of Fraudulent Preference

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether payments made to a director within two years prior to liquidation constituted a fraudulent preference under section 286 of the Companies Act 1963

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence established that the payments to Mr Day were regular, modest salary payments, not intended as preferential repayment of loans. The presumption of fraudulent preference under section 286(3) was rebutted by Mr Day's credible explanation and the absence of evidence of intent to prefer himself as creditor over other creditors.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Declaration of fraudulent preference not granted