A number of recent High Court decisions suggest an increase in the number of interlocutory applications being brought by receivers seeking to obtain vacant possession of the properties over which they have been appointed.

On 23 August 2013, the High Court granted the petition of Bank of Ireland to have Brian O’Donnell and his wife, Mary Patricia O’Donnell adjudicated bankrupt.  One of the issues before the Court was the appropriate date for determining the centre of main interests (COMI) of a debtor.  Two possibilities were put forward: (i) the date of presentation of the bankruptcy petition to the Examiner’s Office of the High Court; or (ii) the date of the hearing of the application by the High Court.

The Courts and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2013 was signed into law by the President on 24 July 2013.  While certain sections of the Act commenced immediately on its signing into law, other provisions have yet to be commenced by ministerial order.

A summary of the key changes brought about by the Act are set out below.

Increase in the Monetary Jurisdiction of District and Circuit Courts

The Act increases the monetary jurisdiction of:

There have been a number of recent cases where companies have sought a reduction in their share capital by way of a High Court sanctioned process. One such case involving Aer Lingus raised interesting issues about the status of pension fund shortfalls as liabilities of the employer company as Emmet Scully and Jennifer McGuire report.

In a reduction of capital application, the High Court’s primary concern is whether the company’s creditors would be prejudiced by the reduction of capital.

The High Court has made an order disqualifying the two directors of Mossway Limited (In Liquidation) for a period of 12 months.

Background

The principal business of the company had been the provision of haulage services with a warehousing and distribution facility. On 3 June 2011, the Revenue Commissioners presented a petition to wind up the company on the basis that it was unable to pay its debts as they fell due. The Court made the order sought and appointed an Official Liquidator.

The Foley’s/O’Reilly’s bar saga, which played out over a nine month period ending in July 2013, resulted in numerous court applications, three written judgments of the High Court and the appointment at various stages of receivers, interim examiners, examiners and liquidators to the companies involved.

Receivership

The manner in which creditors’ meetings are conducted can often be as significant as the actual outcome of the meeting.  A good example of this can be seen from the recent High Court decision in In re Mountview Foods Ltd (In Voluntary Liquidation) [2013] IEHC 125.

The Minister of State for Housing and Planning, Jan O’Sullivan, TD, has announced that she is examining potential changes to the law to clarify the position of residential tenants where a receiver is appointed to rented accommodation.  Concern has been expressed that there is a lack of clarity as to whether a receiver appointed to such a property assumes any of the responsibilities of the landlord or whether he should be solely concerned with recovering value from the asset, as would be conventional.

Section 222 of the Companies Acts 1963 provides that leave of the High Court must be obtained in order to bring or prosecute proceedings against a company which is the subject of a winding-up order.  In In re MJBCH Ltd: Mary Murphy [2013] IEHC 256, the High Court confirmed it has jurisdiction to grant leave retrospectively under this section.

The High Court has granted a creditor’s petition to wind-up a company, notwithstanding the claim that the company could survive as a “going concern” following a restructuring, on the grounds that such a claim should have been advanced by way of application for examinership: In re Heatsolve Ltd [2013] IEHC 399.