Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court grants application by creditor of company to have inspector appointed, on the grounds that: (a) there was prima facie evidence of wrongdoing in relation to the affairs of the company; (b) the application was not vexatious or frivolous; (c) there was evidence of a number of investors in the company being affected which gave rise to a public interest consideration; and (d) there was no evidence before the Court that the only motive of the applicant was to avoid the cost of liquidation.
Company law – inspector – application by creditor of company to appoint inspector – first recorded application before court by creditor pursuant s. 747 of the Companies Act 2014 – allegations of fraud – Court satisfied of existence of prima facie evidence of wrongdoing, unlawfulness or other irregularity in relation to the company’s affairs – Court satisfied that threshold for appointment of inspector met – Court satisfied that appointment of inspector would serve purpose intended by statute – whether a winding up of the company would be more appropriate – whether applicant had pursued application because it was unwilling to fund a liquidation – whether granting relief would have the effect of transferring risk or the cost of investigation to the State – Court not persuaded that the principal objective of the application was not the return of investment – evidence of other investors affected by alleged conduct – Court satisfied that applicant had not acted vexatiously or frivolously or for an improper motive – Court satisfied that it would be appropriate to exercise discretion to appoint an inspector – Court not satisfied to make an order for security for costs – Court refused order directing company to hand over books or documents as inspector had yet to certify non-compliance.
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.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.