No grounds established to restrain presentation of winding-up petition

Injunction application to restrain winding-up petition brought by creditor for failure to pay due and owing debts - petition brought pursuant to 569 (1) of Companies Act 2014: a company may be wound up where it is unable to pay its debts - s. 570: failure to pay debt will occur where demand is made and payment is not made within period of 21 days - because an injunction application such as that being brought in the within proceedings seeks to restrain a creditor's right of access to the courts, the usual "Campus Oil test" does not apply - applicant must show, at least on prima facie basis, that claim being made against it is bound to fail, that there is more suitable alternative remedy or that the application is an abuse of process - petition for winding-up is not an appropriate means of ensuring the payment of a debt where company in good faith and on substantial grounds disputes all of the debt concerned - company says that €500,000 advanced to it was advanced not as a loan repayable on demand, but rather, pursuant to an oral agreement, as an interest free loan repayable only after a period of five years (i.e. in August 2018) - Court notes that in response to initial demand from petitioners, the company first denied the existence of any debt and only later on alleged the existence of the oral agreement - no evidence for existence of oral agreement except from averments of shareholder in the company and another person who is an employee of the company and has failed to disclose whether he has a shareholding in it - company points to authorities where winding-up petition has been restrained where extensive factual disputes concerning the debt exist - Court finds however that the evidence presented by the company in support of its contention that the loan in question was only repayable after 5 years does not indicate, on even a prima facie basis, that the Petitioners' winding-up application is bound to fail - for similar reasons, application to wind-up is not an abuse of process - court finds that there is no suitable alternative remedy available that should deprive the Petitioners from their right to present petition - Court refuses application.