Insolvency practitioners in particular and other readers may find of interest the recent judgment of Butler J in the Irish High Court in the case of Bayview Hotel (Waterville) Limited (the “Company “) and the Companies Act 2014. The judgment can be accessed free of charge on the BAILII website by clicking the link to the judgment.
There were two opposing groups of creditors of the Company. The petitioner applied for the Company to be wound up on grounds set out in the Companies Act, 2014 either of being unable to pay its debts (under section 569(1)(d)) or on the basis that the court is of the opinion that it is just and equitable to wind the Company up (under section 569(1) (e)).
There was much dispute as to the business dealings of the two opposing groups and poor records of transactions and prior recollections were given little weight by the judge in the case.
Some considerations which may be of interest in the case include:
The position of a creditor who opposed the winding up petition to speak on behalf of the Company. This creditor was also a director of the Company. The judge said that this creditor personally had much to gain if the court were to accept the arguments that he now purports to advance on behalf of the Company. In the circumstances of board deadlock between rival interests and a dispute about ownership of shares it would not be in the interests of justice to allow one of the two competing factions to speak on the Company’s behalf.
A review of the law as to whether or not the Company was able to pay its debts. The court set out the test for insolvency: is the Company able to pay its debts as they become due? On a review and application of the law to this case the judge was satisfied that the Company was unable to pay its debts within the meaning of S 569(1)(d) of the Companies Act, 2014.
Winding up on the just and equitable ground. The court was satisfied that the company could be wound up because it was unable to pay its debts. Therefore, it was not necessary for the judge to give a decision on winding up on the just and equitable ground. However, she outlined her views which are obiter and persuasive only, in case the matter was taken further. She said that in the circumstances there has been a complete falling out between the parties, there was deadlock on the board of directors and there is no evidence that agreement could be reached on the voluntary sale of the hotel. The judge said she would be minded to also grant the petition to wind the Company up on the just and equitable ground. The judge also gave some consideration to the exercise of discretion by the court and made reference to some recent Irish caselaw in the matter.
These pages are provided as resources and information only and nothing in these pages purports to provide professional advice or definitive legal interpretation(s) or opinion(s) on the applicable legislation or legal or other matters referred to in the pages. If the reader is in doubt on any matter in this complex area further legal or other advice must be obtained. While every reasonable care has been taken by Chartered Accountants Ireland in the preparation of these pages, we do not guarantee the accuracy or veracity of any statement, resource, guidance, information or opinion, or the appropriateness, suitability or applicability of any practice or procedure contained therein. Chartered Accountants Ireland is not responsible for any errors or omissions or for the results obtained from the use of the resources or information contained in these pages.