Mareva injunction was not appropriate means of enforcing Circuit Court order

Powers of a liquidator - injunctions – appeal from Circuit Court decision granting Mareva injunction against companies and the liquidator - companies were property developers – wound up by order of the High Court on foot of a petition of the Revenue - Revenue claimed to be owed approximately €1.8 million - companies are grossly insolvent - liquidator estimates liabilities of approximately €5.8 million - anticipated that realisations already made, or assets not yet sold, may cover the costs and expenses of the liquidation and provide a small dividend to some preferential creditor – property management company brought proceedings seeking the transfer of the common areas – sought an order that the companies complete the development in accordance with the development agreement – Circuit Court made the orders sought – orders made - obtained a Mareva injunction from the Circuit Court - sought to attach and commit the companies and liquidator - issues relating to the enforcement of his primary order ought to await consideration by the High Court - effect of winding up on the title to company property – statutory trust - duties and powers of a liquidator - exception to the general proposition that the distribution and realisation of the assets of a company in liquidation must be dealt with in accordance with the statutory scheme is one that accords with fundamental principles, and is where a person is seeking to enforce a claim, not against the company, but to his own property - retrospective effect of Multi Unit Development Act - order to complete the conveyancing - remedial orders - relevant provisions of the MUD Act - a remedial order, on the other hand, is made only when the court is satisfied the contractual obligations have not been met, and the right crystallises only when the court so determines - no express displacement of priorities - leave of the court to commence proceedings - liquidator powers limited - the statutory “trust” is relevant - not retrospective regarding orders that direct expenditure of monies - MUD Act has retrospective effect to some extent, in that it creates a statutory means of enforcing existing obligations and rights - does not of itself impose an obligation on the liquidator to take positive steps to carry out works of construction and development - the obligations to complete a development in accordance with planning permission and under the Building Regulations is enforceable as a matter of statute by virtue of s. 24 of the MUD Act, but like any action in specific performance it may be one which is enforceable only as a claim in damages - the mandatory orders granted by the Circuit Court do not displace the statutory scheme of priority set out in s. 621 of the Companies Act - costs order - conduct of the Circuit court litigation - part of the costs of the prosecution of the Circuit Court proceedings are to be treated as being entitled to priority, as must portion of the costs of the application for leave to bring the proceedings - any enforcement action against the companies would not be commenced without further order – attachment against the liquidator not correct - he order for costs made by the Circuit Court is not to be treated as a cost, charge, and expense in the liquidation, save with respect to that part of the costs as may reasonably be ascertained to be attributable to the costs of prosecuting the claim for specific performance of the Management Company Agreement for the transfer of the common areas and the reversions - application for a Mareva injunction and the application for attachment and committal were not an appropriate means by which the Circuit Court order was to be enforced – injunction vacated.