or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments
Court of Appeal refuses appeal of High Court order restoring a company to the Register of Companies, as well as related orders requiring the directors to bring the annual returns of the company up to date, and to deliver to the Revenue Commissioners all outstanding statements in relation to the Company, sought by the respondent in order to realise the assets secured by the company pursuant to a mortgage debenture, on the grounds that the statutory requirements for restoration have been met, and it is both just and equitable that an application be granted.
Company law - Everyday sought an order pursuant to s.738 of the Companies Act 2014 (the “2014 Act”), restoring the Company to the Register of Companies, as well as related orders under s.740 of the 2014 Act requiring the directors to bring the annual returns of the Company up to date, and to deliver to the Revenue Commissioners all outstanding statements in relation to the Company as required by s.882 of the Taxes Consolidation Act, 1997 - S.738(2) provides that such applications may be brought by the company, a creditor of the company, a person who was a member or an officer of the company at the time of its dissolution, or any person who was entitled to be a member of the company at the date of its dissolution - application came before the High Court on 12th November 2022 - court granted application and made an order requiring the directors to file all outstanding annual returns and to deliver all outstanding statements in relation to the company to the Revenue Commissioners - respondent states that purpose in having the Company restored to the Register is so that Everyday may, through the appointment of a receiver, realise the assets secured by the Company pursuant to the mortgage debenture executed in favour of AIB, the benefit of which now belongs to Everyday - appellants accept that Everyday is a creditor of the Company within the meaning of s.738 of the 2014 Act - appellants’ contention that the fundamental issue in the appeal is whether or not Everyday has been disadvantaged for the purposes of s.738 - statutory requirements for restoration have been met - it is both just and equitable that an application be granted.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.