Derbar Developments Ltd (In Liq) -v- Companies Act [2012] IEHC 144 (20 April 2012)

Derbar Developments Ltd (In Liq) -v- Companies Act [2012] IEHC 144 (20 April 2012)

The directors acted responsibly in the conduct of the affairs of the company, taking into account their overall tenure, the context of their decisions in 2006, their intention and efforts to discharge the tax liability, and the unforeseeable collapse of the property market; therefore, a restriction order is not warranted.

Citation
[2012] IEHC 144
Parties
Applicant: Thomas McGuinness; Respondent: Barry Dobbin; Respondent: Derek Lavelle
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
20 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 150 of the Companies Act 1990 / Judgment on Application for Restriction Order
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Director Restriction, Director Responsibility, Liquidation, Capital Gains Tax Liability
Company Law Insolvency Law Director Restriction Director Responsibility Liquidation Capital Gains Tax Liability

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas McGuinness

Applicant

Barry Dobbin

Respondent

Derek Lavelle

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Section 150 of the Companies Act 1990 / Judgment on Application for Restriction Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the directors acted responsibly in relation to the conduct of the affairs of the company under section 150(2)(a) of the Companies Act 1990
  2. 2 Whether a declaration of restriction should be made against the respondents

Ratio Decidendi

The directors acted responsibly in the conduct of the affairs of the company, taking into account their overall tenure, the context of their decisions in 2006, their intention and efforts to discharge the tax liability, and the unforeseeable collapse of the property market; therefore, a restriction order is not warranted.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Application for declarations of restriction against the respondents is refused.