Kavanagh v. Riedler & Ors [2004] IEHC 334 (27 May 2004)

Kavanagh v. Riedler & Ors [2004] IEHC 334 (27 May 2004)

Mr. Coady, as a non-executive director, acted responsibly by keeping himself informed, taking steps to address financial difficulties, organising refinancing and an independent review, and was entitled to rely on executive directors for operational matters. There was no evidence he acted dishonestly or that it would...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] IEHC 334
Parties
Applicant: Tom Kavanagh; Respondent: Josef Riedler; Respondent: Juergen Weissman; Respondent: Patrick Coady; Respondent: Klaus Rauch; Respondent: John Twomey; Respondent: Ray Bushe
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
27 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Company Law Application (liquidation/restriction) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Director Restriction, Director Responsibility, Liquidation, Non Executive Director Duties
Company Law Insolvency Director Restriction Director Responsibility Liquidation Non Executive Director Duties

Source-derived case record

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tom Kavanagh

Applicant

Josef Riedler

Respondent

Juergen Weissman

Respondent

Patrick Coady

Respondent

Klaus Rauch

Respondent

John Twomey

Respondent

Ray Bushe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Company Law Application (liquidation/restriction) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr. Coady, as a non-executive director, acted responsibly in relation to the conduct of the company's affairs for the purposes of section 150 of the Companies Act 1990.

Ratio Decidendi

Mr. Coady, as a non-executive director, acted responsibly by keeping himself informed, taking steps to address financial difficulties, organising refinancing and an independent review, and was entitled to rely on executive directors for operational matters. There was no evidence he acted dishonestly or that it would be just and equitable to restrict him. The application for restriction was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for restriction against Mr. Coady dismissed.