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.
Proceedings could and should have been brought by plaintiffs in earlier litigation
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal dismisses appeal of High Court order striking out of proceedings concerning the validity of an appointment of a receiver, on the grounds that the proceedings could and should have been brought by the plaintiffs in earlier litigation, and since they were a collateral attack on a subsequent order, the proceedings amounted to an abuse of process.
Practice and procedure – appeal of High Court striking out of proceedings – whether a receiver was validly appointed – whether a guarantee given by Elektron to INBS in respect of the borrowings of Crossplan was in breach of s.31 of the Companies Act, 1990 – whether the appointment of the Receiver over the assets of Elektron and in particular Aberdeen Lodge ceased to have effect as of the date of the sale of the loans and related securities by IRBC to Kenmare – whether the proceedings could and should have been brought by the plaintiffs in earlier litigation – High Court Judge was correct in concluding on the facts herein that the claims now sought to be made by the plaintiffs in the 2015 proceedings are ones which could and should have been made in one or more of the 2012 proceedings – collateral attack on Supreme Court order – abuse of process – appeal dismissed.
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.
