In Leahy v Doyle & anor [2016] IEHC 177, the High Court issued orders of restriction in respect of directors of two companies (Gingersnap and Scappa), under Section 150 of the Companies Act 1990 (now Section 819 of the Companies Act 2014). While the companies were different, the liquidator and the directors were the same.

Background 

In Delaney v AIB [2016] IECA 5, Court of Appeal, Peart J, 28 January 2016 the Court of Appeal held that a bank had no duty of care to advise customers on the wisdom of a commercial transaction. 

Facts

In Murphy -v- O'Flynn & anor [2016] IEHC 197 a liquidator sought an order from the Court restricting William and Deirdre O’Flynn from acting as directors pursuant to Section 150 of the Companies Act 1990.

Applicable Law 

The High Court (Binchy J), has recently made restriction orders in respect of directors in two separate applications before it.

Facts 

Facts 

In Cahill -v- O'Brien & anor [2015] IEHC 817, the Court considered an application for the restriction of two directors pursuant to Section 150 of the Companies Act, 1990 together with an application extending the time for the making of the application.

Facts

Director of Corporate Enforcement -v- Walsh & ors [2016] IECA 2 concerned an appeal by the Director of Corporate Enforcement (the Director) against a decision of Barrett J declining to make a disqualification or restriction order against three directors.

Facts 

In Farrell & Kelly v Petrosyan & Ors (linked to McLoughlin & anor v ACC Loan Management Ltd), High Court, O'Connor J, 2 March 2016 the High Court considered an application for possession on behalf of receivers appointed by ACC Loan Management Limited (ACC).  One of the issues before the court was whether the receivers had authority to act in the proceedings in view of their deeds of appointment by ACC. 

In McCann -v- Halpin & anor [2016] IESC 11, the receiver applied to the High Court for directions pursuant to Section 316(1) of the Companies Act 1963, in relation to the exercise of his powers as receiver over the property and assets of Elektron and Crossplan (the Companies). The appeal before the Supreme Court dealt with one issue - whether the receiver was validly appointed.