Ural Hudson Ltd., Re [2005] IEHC 26 (7 February 2005)

Ural Hudson Ltd., Re [2005] IEHC 26 (7 February 2005)

Petitioner failed to establish that refusal of the injunction would cause irreparable loss or damage, as fair value of shares would not be affected by payment of funds, and respondents' ability to meet a buyout order would not be adversely affected. Minimum requirements for Mareva injunction not met.

Citation
[2005] IEHC 26
Parties
Petitioner: Euton Investment Company SAH; Respondent: Ural Hudson Limited; Respondent: Henri Aboutboul; Respondent: Jean Louis Laborde
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
07 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Section 205 Companies Act Petition and Interlocutory Injunction Application / Interlocutory Application for Injunction
Outcome
Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed
Legal Topics
Oppression of Minority Shareholders, Interlocutory Injunction, Mareva Injunction, Directors' Loans, Share Valuation
Company Law Equity Oppression of Minority Shareholders Interlocutory Injunction Mareva Injunction Directors' Loans Share Valuation

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Euton Investment Company SAH

Petitioner

Ural Hudson Limited

Respondent

Henri Aboutboul

Respondent

Jean Louis Laborde

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Section 205 Companies Act Petition and Interlocutory Injunction Application / Interlocutory Application for Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interlocutory injunction restraining payment of €2 million should be granted
  2. 2 Whether petitioner would suffer irreparable loss if injunction not granted
  3. 3 Whether Mareva injunction requirements are met

Ratio Decidendi

Petitioner failed to establish that refusal of the injunction would cause irreparable loss or damage, as fair value of shares would not be affected by payment of funds, and respondents' ability to meet a buyout order would not be adversely affected. Minimum requirements for Mareva injunction not met.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed

Orders

  • Petitioner's application for interlocutory injunction refused
  • Petitioner's application for Mareva injunction refused