Permanent TSB plc & Ors v Skoczylas & Ors [2019] IESC 78 (05 November 2019)

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

MARGARET HAYES, EMER DALY, SANDY KINNEY, PAT RYAN, AND ROY KEENAN

PIOTR SKOCZYLAS, SCOTCHSTONE CAPITAL FUND LIMITED, GERARD DOWLING,

Judgment of O’Donnell J. delivered the 5th day of November 2019.

1 These proceedings represent a small skirmish in a lengthy litigation war. There have been

substantial battles in the High Court, the Court of Appeal, this court, and in the Court of

Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”). In the Irish Courts alone there have been at least

13 different sets of proceedings between these or related parties.

2 Each of the appellants are shareholders in Permanent TSB Group Holdings plc (formerly

known as Irish Life and Permanent Group Holdings plc) (“the group holding company”).

The first appellant, Piotr Skoczylas, has been a shareholder in the group holding company

since March 2011, and was formerly one of its directors. Mr. Skoczylas is a managing

director and fund manager of the second appellant, Scotchstone Capital Fund Ltd.

(“Scotchstone”), which also has a shareholding in the group holding company. Some of

the appellants, namely Gerard Dowling, Padraig McManus, and Muriel Scorer, notified the

court in advance of the hearing that they did not wish to participate in the appeal. At the

hearing, the court was informed that the fifth appellant, Georg Haug, is deceased. Mr.

Neugeberger attended in court as did the father of Mr. Mc Gann. Mr. Skoczylas indicated

that these individuals were adopting the position advanced by him, and subsequently Mr.

Neugeberger wrote to the court indicating he adopted Mr. Skoczylas’s submissions. Mr.

Skoczylas made submissions on his own behalf. He has shown himself to be a well-

prepared and knowledgeable litigant who has put comprehensive submissions before the

court. The legal issue for determination in this appeal is not affected by the absence of

any of the other appellants. Any reference to Mr. Skoczylas and his submissions should be

understood as encompassing any individual shareholder who adopts his submissions.

3 The first respondent, Permanent TSB plc (formerly Irish Life and Permanent plc) (“the

bank”) is a wholly owned subsidiary of the holding company. The bank was until 2012 the

owner of a life assurance business carried out through Irish Life Group Ltd. and its

subsidiaries (“the Irish Life Group”). The second to twelfth respondents are each serving

4 The detailed background to this matter is set out in the judgment of O’Malley J

[2014] IEHC 418, from which this perhaps oversimplified account is drawn, which is sufficient to

identify the net legal issues to be determined in this matter. The broad background to this

matter is that the bank was the successor to a well-known building society. At the time of

its conversion to a bank, depositors with the society became shareholders in the bank and

then the holding company. It appears, however, that Mr. Skoczylas and Scotchstone

acquired their shareholding in the group holding company at a time when the banking

system in Ireland was in distress and the share price had dropped to a few pence. While

the bank differed from some of the other financial institutions in the Irish market in that it

was part of a group which included a profitable insurance company, and the bank had not

had to engage with the National Asset Management Agency (“NAMA”), because it was not

as exposed to lending to developers, it was clearly affected by the collapse of liquidity in

the market. In early 2011 it, together with other banks, was the subject of a prudential

review by the Central Bank of capital and liquidity requirements, PCAR and PLAR

respectively, with a view to deleveraging the banking system and reducing the banks’

reliance on short term funding, pursuant to Ireland’s obligations under the Programme for

Support, known colloquially as “the bailout”. In the case of the bank, this resulted in a

decision by the Central Bank of 31 March 2011 requiring the bank to raise an additional

€4 billion by the end of July 2011 to be achieved in part by asset disposal, but principally

would require a very substantial introduction of fresh capital in the region of €2.3 billion.

The Minister for Finance was prepared to provide that amount in return for an allotment

of shares which would have diluted the existing shareholders’ interests and made the

Minister the owner of the clear majority (more than 99%) of the shares in the group

holding company. This proposal was, however, rejected by the shareholders at an EGM on

20 July 2011 at which Mr. Skoczylas was prominent. Accordingly, the group was the

subject of the first of three direction orders made at the suit of the Minister for Finance in

respect of the bank and the group holding company under s. 9 of the Credit Institutions

(Stabilisation) Act 2010 (“the 2010 Act”), each of which has been challenged by Mr.

Skoczylas. The 2010 Act was enacted, inter alia, to make provision, in the context of the

National Recovery Plan 2011-2014 and the European Union/International Monetary Fund

Programme of Financial Support for Ireland, for the stabilisation and preservation or

restoration of the financial position of certain credit institutions. The direction orders

made in respect of the group included two which are of relevance to these proceedings. :-

(a) A direction order made by the High Court on 26 July 2011 (“the 2011 direction

order”) providing, inter alia, for the subscription by and allotment to the Minister for

Finance of new shares in the group holding company, making him the owner of

99. 2% of the capital in the company, giving him control of the group holding

(b) A direction order made by the High Court on 28 March 2012 (“the 2012 direction

order”) requiring the bank to sell its shareholding in the Irish Life Group to the

5 Mr. Skoczylas and other shareholders in the group holding company have sought to

challenge these interventions, and the manner in which the group responded to the

Minister’s approach by the Minister in a number of different proceedings, thirteen in total

to date. These include a series of injunction proceedings, constitutional challenges and

proceedings under s. 205 of the Companies Act 1963 (“the 1963 Act”) alleging oppression

of minority shareholders, but for present purposes it is sufficient to refer to three sets of

6 On 26 July 2011, Mr. Skoczylas and others initiated a challenge to the 2011 direction

order. That was the subject of a comprehensive judgment by O’Malley J. in the High

Court (see Dowling v. Minister for Finance [2014] IEHC 418), which led to a reference to

the CJEU, and a judgment by that court in Dowling v. Minister for Finance ((Case C-

41/15) (ECLI:EU:C:2016:836)). It should be recorded that O’Malley J. gave a decision in

which she applied the answer by the CJEU to the questions referred and dismissed the

plaintiff’s claim (see Dowling v. Minister for Finance [2017] IEHC 520), and an appeal

against that decision was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. This court in turn refused

leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal by determination dated 1

March 2019 (see Dowling v. Minister for Finance [2019] IESCDET 55). These have been

7 On 20 February 2012, proceedings were commenced (High Court Record No. 2012/1696

P) seeking an injunction directing that Mr. Skoczylas be immediately appointed as a

director of the group holding company. An interlocutory injunction was refused by

8 On 28 March 2012, proceedings were issued in the High Court (Record No. 2012/116

MCA) challenging the 2012 direction order made on that day. On 28 June 2012, the High

Court (Peart J.) dismissed the application made by the first named appellant and others

to set aside the direction order (see Dowling v. Minister for Finance [2012] IEHC 436).

9 On 10 and 11 January 2013, while the first set of proceedings which were to be heard by

O’Malley J. were in being, and were being actively pursued, the appellants took the

unusual step of sending notices to all the respondents pursuant to s. 160(7) of the

Companies Act 1990 (as amended) (“the 1990 Act”) stating that they intended to make

an application under s. 160(2) of the 1990 Act in respect of the director respondents.

Section 160(2) provides, in brief, that in any proceedings, or as a result of an application

under the section, where a court is satisfied that any of the matters listed in s. 160(2)(a)

to (i), it may of its own motion or as result of the application make a disqualification order

against the person for such period as it sees fit. The Notices set out the provisions of s.

160(7) which required ten days’ notice of intention to make an application for

disqualification and stated “TAKE NOTICE that as part of the intended proceedings in the

High Court against you as a director, the undersigned members of Permanent TSB Group

Holdings plc (formerly Irish Life & Permanent Group Holdings plc) intend inter alia to seek

relief against you pursuant to section 160 (2) of the Companies Act 1990”. The reference

to the intended proceedings against the directors appears to be a reference to

proceedings under s. 205 of the 1963 Act, but that is not clear. Around the same time,

Mr. Skoczylas also sent details of the notices to executives of Canada Life which was then

10 On 18 January 2013, one week later, the respondents issued a notice of motion in plenary

proceedings which they commenced on that day (High Court Record No. 2013/569 P)

seeking an interlocutory injunction restraining the appellants from issuing proceedings to

seek reliefs under s. 160 of the 1990 Act. The respondents obtained an interim injunction

in the High Court on the same day, which was continued pending the hearing of the

motion. On 4 February 2013, Cooke J. granted the interlocutory injunction sought by the

respondents, giving his reasons in a written judgment (see [2013] IEHC 42). It is against

that judgment and the order which was perfected on 5 February 2013 that this appeal is

brought. It should be said that in the period between the commencement of the

proceedings and the hearing of the interlocutory application, the appellants also issued a

further set of proceedings on 21 January 2013 pursuant to s. 205 of the Companies Act

1963 (as amended) (“the 1963 Act”) in which they sought reliefs on the strength of

alleged oppression by the respondent directors as minority shareholders in the group

holding company. Those proceedings have been the subject of a number of interlocutory

11 The grounds upon which the interlocutory injunction was sought were the following: -

The s. 160(7) notices sent to the respondents were invalid or inadequate;

(2) An application in respect of the respondents under s. 160(2) of the 1990 Act would

be an abuse of process and would be bound to fail, because it would be brought

with the ulterior motive of bringing pressure on the respondents in pursuit of the

appellants’ campaign to obstruct the restructuring of the group, and with the

collateral purpose of obtaining indirect support for or rulings upon matters already

12 At the outset, Cooke J. considered that the application could be decided on the first

ground only, and, accordingly, that it was unnecessary to make any assessment of the

second issue. He referred to the judgment of Fennelly J. in the Supreme Court in Director

of Corporate Enforcement v. Byrne [2009] IESC 57, [2010] 1 IR 222, at p. 257, as

“One other procedural detail is important. Section 160(7) of the Act obliges the

Director to give at least ten days notice to the person of his intention to apply for a

disqualification order. This provides him with an opportunity to respond, as he did

in the present case. This provision illustrates the general principle that any person

who is to be the subject of an application under the section must be given clear

notice of that fact and of the grounds on which the application is to be made. I

emphasise the matter here because it has a bearing on the finding of want of

commercial probity made by the learned trial judge in the present case. The

applicant, by his notice, stated that he intended to make the application pursuant

to paragraphs (b), (d) and (e) of Section 160(2), but also stated that the

application was to be brought having regard to the Inspector’s report. In fact, both

the draft notice of motion sent with the Director’s prior notice and the notice of

motion actually sent were based exclusively on the contents of the Inspector’s

13 Cooke J. considered that the principles in Campus Oil Ltd. v. Minister for Industry and

Energy (No. 2) [1983] I.R. 88 were applicable, and that the respondents had established

a fair issue to be considered in the main action, and a prima facie case that no valid

notice for the purpose of s. 160(7) of the 1990 Act had been given by the appellants,

because the appellants had not set out the grounds under s. 160(2) on which they

intended to bring the application. He also considered that s. 160(7) required that there be

a genuine and fully formed or settled intention to initiate the s. 160(2) procedure. It was

clearly arguable that the validity of the notices was seriously in question as a genuine or

valid discharge of the statutory obligation in s. 160(7) of the 1990 Act, having regard to

the evidence in the affidavit sworn by the first appellant, Mr. Skoczylas, that the

appellants had not yet decided on what grounds the s. 160(2) applications could be

brought. Accordingly, he decided that the first limb of the Campus Oil test was satisfied.

14 As to whether damages were an appropriate remedy, he considered there was a clear and

obvious risk to the respondents in the form of reputational damage and detriment to the

commercial operation of the group, and the appellants had not shown that they would be

able to discharge any award of damages that might be made should an injunction be

refused. On the other hand, the postponement of the introduction of any application

under s. 160(2) would have minimal, if any, consequence for the appellants. The balance

of convenience also lay in the respondents’ favour. The claims and allegations raised in

the proposed s. 160(2) application had already been raised and put in issue in other

proceedings, and the appellants had already had access to court to vindicate their

15 It is notable that in coming to this decision, Cooke J. distinguished two authorities. On the

question of the validity of the s. 160(7) notices, he considered the decision of the Court of

Appeal in England and Wales in Secretary for State for Trade and Industry v. Langridge

[1991] Ch. 402. In that case, the Court of Appeal in England and Wales had to consider

the provisions of s. 16(1) of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, the

equivalent provision to s. 160(7). In that case, it was considered that the provision was

directory in character and not mandatory, and any non-compliance with the statutory

requirement to serve ten days’ notice was a procedural irregularity which did not render

the Secretary of State's application for a disqualification order either void or voidable. On

the question of the test to be applied for the test of an interlocutory injunction, he

rejected the analogy drawn by the appellants with an application to restrain a winding-up

order. In Truck and Machinery Sales Ltd. v. Marubeni Komatsu Ltd. [1996] 1 I.R. 12,

Keane J. (as he then was) held that the Campus Oil principles were not relevant to the

grant of an application for an injunction to restrain the presentation of a winding up order.

He observed “[d]ifferent considerations entirely apply where, as here, the object of the

application is to prevent the respondent from exercising his right of access to the courts,

whether by way of ordinary process or a winding-up petition”. He continued: -

“The constitutional right of recourse to the courts should not be inhibited, save in

exceptional circumstances, and this applies as much to the presentation of a

petition for the winding-up of a company by a person with the appropriate locus

standi as it does to any other form of proceedings. The undoubted power of the

courts to restrain proceedings which are an abuse of process is one which should

not be lightly exercised. In the context of winding-up petitions, I have no doubt

that it should be exercised only where the plaintiff company has established at least

a prima facie case that its presentation would constitute an abuse of process. In

many cases, a prima facie case will be established where the plaintiff adduces

evidence which satisfies the court that the petition is bound to fail or, at the least,

that there is a suitable alternative remedy. It would not be appropriate to apply the

principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Campus Oil Ltd. v. The Minister for

Industry and Energy (No. 2) [1983] I.R. 88 in cases of this nature where it is the

creditor's right to have recourse to the courts, rather than any right of the plaintiff

16 However, Cooke J. considered that the s. 160 proceedings in this case were unusual, in

that an interlocutory injunction restraining such proceedings did not in fact deprive the

appellants of access to the court for the assertion or vindication of rights and claims which

they professed to pursue. He also considered that in an ordinary case, the defendant’s

proprietary interests as a creditor of the plaintiff in a winding-up situation justified the

higher threshold to be met in an application to restrain a defendant from presenting a

winding-up petition to wind up the plaintiff company. By contrast, the appellants in the

present case had “no equivalent personal interest in obtaining the disqualification of the

17 In the aftermath of the grant of an interlocutory injunction, Mr. Skoczylas and the other

appellants appealed to the Supreme Court. However, they took the unusual step of

bringing their own application to restrain further prosecution of the case in the High Court

pending the determination of this appeal. This application was consented to by the

plaintiffs. The apparent thinking behind this course was that Mr. Skoczylas wished to

avoid the substantive matter being determined in the High Court in advance of any appeal

with the possibility that that would render the appeal moot, believing, perhaps, that his

appeal stood a good prospect of success on the legal issues which he wished to advance.

This course had its own internal logic, and in fairness to Mr. Skoczylas he has written to

the Supreme Court seeking an early hearing of his appeal, and he clearly feared that the

appeal would be rendered moot if the substantive hearing proceeded but the course he

took of seeking to restrain the further prosecution of these proceedings was in my view

misguided. Apart from the inconsistency of seeking an order doing the very thing of

which he complained – the restraint of proceedings – this course created a stalemate at

the High Court level. However, where a party is restrained by an interlocutory injunction

pending trial, the best remedy may well be to seek an early trial of the substantive issues.

In such a case, and indeed in this case, such a claim could be heard quite promptly, since

the essential questions were matters of law with perhaps limited issues of fact: did the

proceedings under s. 160 require notice under s. 160(7), and, in any event, were such

proceedings an abuse of the process? Furthermore, if Mr. Skoczylas succeeded in

defeating these claims, he would be able to pursue the s. 160 claim and pursue a claim

under the undertaking as to damages. This course would also have been more

satisfactory from the overall point of view of both public policy and the courts. It would

mean that the legal issue would be addressed on its merits, rather than refracted through

the prism of the law relating to the interlocutory injunctions, whether by reference to a

test of an arguable case, as the plaintiffs contended, or a prima facie case as Mr.

Skoczylas argues. There was undoubtedly a risk that if the case was resolved at the level

of the High Court, an appellate court might take the view that the case was moot or moot

otherwise than in respect of costs, but, if so, this was because the substantive issue had

been resolved, or at least the matter had proceeded to the point where the question was

of the substantive merits. Litigation is not, or at least is not meant to be, a simple point

scoring exercise where the courts are required to adjudicate and reward marks on every

conceivable issue which the parties wish to dispute. The function of litigation is to permit

the administration of justice, and to resolve disputes between parties with finality in

accordance with law. The pragmatism of the law means that, although there is quite

elaborate law on the principles to be applied for the grant of an interlocutory injunction,

everything is subsidiary to the ultimate determination of the issue at the trial. If,

therefore, a plaintiff obtains an interlocutory injunction but fails at the trial, a court will

assess damages on the undertaking as to damages on the basis that the interlocutory

injunction ought not to have been granted, even if it was granted in accordance with the

relevant principles. The determination of the substantive outcome overrides the

interlocutory determination which is, by definition, temporary. If, therefore, the resolution

of the substantive issue had the effect of possibly rendering an appeal on the

interlocutory injunction moot, or limiting it to a question of costs, that is not in any way a

defect in the system: the question of the correctness of the grant of the interlocutory

injunction would have become subsumed, as it is intended to be, in the question of the

substantive merits of the case. It would have been far preferable for this matter to be

determined in short course in the High Court, and, if necessary, the substantive issue

appealed to this court, or, in due course, the Court of Appeal, rather than create an

artificial stalemate at the trial court level and then await the hearing of this appeal many

years after the event. However, that course was not taken, and the court must now

18 Prominent in Mr. Skoczylas’ argument is that he contends that the injunction was

impermissible because it had the effect of denying him his constitutional right of access to

a court, and, moreover, for an extended period of seven years. There is no doubt that

there is a constitutionally protected right to have access to court to litigate claims flowing

from the obligation imposed on the courts to administer justice under Article 34 of the

Constitution. However, the contention that the injunction was impermissible because it

denied access to the courts, particularly for seven years, requires more careful

consideration. First, for the reasons set out above, the situation which ensued occurred

partly because of Mr. Skoczylas’s own tactical choice in the fact that he himself sought the

type of order which he now contends is impermissible, restraining the further prosecution

of the case in the High Court. If he had not sought to do this, then the matter could have

both come to a full hearing and, possibly, been disposed of on appeal by now.

Furthermore, the injunction was issued solely on the basis of non-compliance with the

requirement under s. 162(7) of the 1990 Act for ten days’ notice to be given to the

respondents. It follows that he could have issued such a notice without prejudice to his

contention that it was not necessary as a matter of law and commenced the s. 160

proceedings. Furthermore, s. 160 is an unusual jurisdiction which, particularly when

arising between private parties, arises as an ancillary order consequent upon the

determination of some factual dispute. In this case, as the trial judge pointed out, there

were already proceedings in being in which the factual issues which were sought to be

ventilated in the s. 160 proceedings would be dealt with. Finally, and perhaps most

importantly, Mr. Skoczylas and the other appellants had access to court, both for the

purposes of defending the application in the High Court for an interlocutory injunction and

now for the purpose of prosecuting this appeal. The issue therefore cannot be dealt with

simply in terms of an order restraining access to court generally, for a period of seven

19 It is true, however, that the effect of the interlocutory injunction is to prevent Mr.

Skoczylas and any other party bound by it from seeking to litigate the claim he wishes to

litigate (a s. 160 order disqualifying the respondents), in the manner he wishes to so

(without serving a notice ten days in advance specifying the grounds of the application).

For reasons which I will address later, this is by no means an irrelevant consideration, but

it is very far removed from a blanket prohibition on access to court. The right to litigate

claims in an adversarial system means that a party normally has a right to choose the

manner in which he or she does so. But that right is not unlimited. Claims brought can be

struck out in court if incorrectly commenced, if the court has no jurisdiction, if the claim

discloses no cause of action, if the claim is, in the well-worn, if technical, phrase “frivolous

and vexatious”, or is otherwise an abuse of process. A claim may be dismissed in limine

and without addressing the substantive issues on the grounds of a statute of limitations

or laches. Even when a claim proceeds, it may be limited by restrictions on time,

evidence, the questioning of witnesses, and the content and length of submissions. All of

this restrains access to litigate claims to a greater or lesser strength without breaching

the constitutional right. It is an important feature of most if not all methods permitting a

restriction of the claim, or even its dismissal in limine, that the process normally involves

an application to court and a decision by a court or under its supervision, meaning that

the party normally has access to the court to argue that issue before an order is made

with the effect of precluding further litigation of a particular claim.

20 As will become apparent later in this judgment, I am not by any means discounting a

litigant’s interest in prosecuting a lawful claim of his or her choice in the manner in which

he or she thinks best, but the question must be approached as whether the order made in

this case is a permissible restriction on that right or interest, rather than a blanket

(1) What test should the High Court apply on an application to restrain the issuance of

proceedings seeking the disqualification of a director under s. 160 of the 1990 Act

(2) Applying such a test, should the appellants have been restrained from issuing

proceedings either because of a failure to serve a valid notice under s. 160(7)

setting out the matters relied upon, or as an abuse of process, or both?

22 At the outset of that consideration it may be useful, however, to consider that, at the time

of the application, s. 160 of the 1990 Act provided as follows (with amendments denoted

“160. Disqualification of certain persons from acting as directors or auditors of or

(1) Where a person is convicted on indictment of any indictable offence in relation to

a company, or involving fraud or dishonesty, then during the period of five years

from the date of conviction or such period as the court, on the application of the

prosecutor and having regard to all the circumstances of the case, may order –

(a) he shall not be appointed or act as an auditor, director or other officer,

receiver, liquidator or examiner or be in any way, whether directly or

indirectly, concerned or take part in the promotion, formation or

(b) he shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be subject to a

(a) fails to comply with section 3A(1) of the Companies Amendment Act

(b) in purported compliance with the said section 3A(1) or 195(8), permits

the first-mentioned statement in the said section 3A(1) or, as the case

may be, the first-mentioned notification of the said section 195(8) to

shall, upon the delivery to the registrar of companies of the said first-

mentioned statement or notification or, as the case may be, the said

statement or notification accompanied by a statement as aforesaid, be

deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be subject to a disqualification

(a) so much as remains unexpired, at the date of the delivery mentioned

in that subsection, of the period for which the person concerned is

disqualified under the law of the other state referred to in section 3A(1)

Principal Act from being appointed or acting in the manner described

(b) if the person concerned is so disqualified under the law of more than

one other such state and the portions of the respective periods for

which he is so disqualified that remain unexpired at the date of that

delivery are not equal, whichever of those unexpired portions is the

(2) Where the court is satisfied in any proceedings or as a result of an application

(a) a person has been guilty, while a promoter, officer, auditor, receiver,

liquidator or examiner of a company, of any fraud in relation to the

(b) a person has been guilty, while a promoter, officer, auditor, receiver,

liquidator or examiner of a company, of any breach of his duty as such

(d) the conduct of any person as promoter, officer, auditor, receiver,

liquidator or examiner of a company, makes him unfit to be concerned

(e) in consequence of a report of inspectors appointed by the court or the

Director under the Companies Acts, the conduct of any person makes

(f) a person has been persistently in default in relation to the relevant

(g) a person has been guilty of 2 or more offences under section 202(10);

(h) a person was a director of a company at the time of the sending, after

the commencement of section 42 of the Company Law Enforcement Act

2001, of a letter under subsection (1) of section 12 of the Companies

following the taking of other steps under that section consequent on

the sending of that letter, was struck off the register under subsection

(hh) a person has contravened section 4 or 5 of the Competition Act 2002

or Article 101 or 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European

(i) a person is disqualified under the law of another state (whether

pursuant to an order of a judge or a tribunal or otherwise) from being

appointed or acting as a director or secretary of a body corporate or an

undertaking and the court is satisfied that, if the conduct of the person

or the circumstances otherwise affecting him that gave rise to the said

order being made against him had occurred or arisen in the State, it

would have been proper to make a disqualification order otherwise

(a) For the purposes of subsection (2)(f) the fact that a person has been

persistently in default in relation to the relevant requirements may

(without prejudice to its proof in any other manner) be conclusively

proved by showing that in the five years ending with the date of the

application he has been adjudged guilty (whether or not on the same

occasion) of three or more defaults in relation to those requirements.

(b) A person shall be treated as being adjudged guilty of a default in

relation to a relevant requirement for the purposes of this subsection if

he is convicted of any offence consisting of a contravention of a

(3A) The court shall not make a disqualification order under paragraph (h) of

subsection (2) against a person who shows the court that the company referred

to in that paragraph had no liabilities (whether actual, contingent or prospective)

at the time its name was struck off the register or that any such liabilities that

existed at that time were discharged before the date of the making of the

(3B) A disqualification order under paragraph (i) of subsection (2) may be made

against a person notwithstanding that, at the time of the making of the order, the

person is deemed, by virtue of subsection (1A), to be subject to a disqualification

order for the purposes of this Act, and where a disqualification order under the

said paragraph (i) is made, the period of disqualification specified in it shall be

expressed to begin on the expiry of the period of disqualification referred to in

subsection (1B) to which the person, by virtue of subsection (1A), is subject or

the said period of disqualification as varied, if such be the case, under subsection

(4) An application under paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d) of subsection (2) may be made

(b) any member, contributory, officer, employee, receiver, liquidator,

examiner or creditor of any company in relation to which the person

(i) has been or is acting or is proposing to be proposed to act as

(ii) has been or is concerned or taking part, or is proposing to be

(5) An application under paragraph (e) or (g) of subsection (2) may be made by the

(6) An application under paragraph (f) of subsection (2) may be made by–

(6A) In addition to the persons who in pursuance of subsections (4), (5) and (6) may

make such an application, an application under subsection (2)(a), (b), (c), (d),

(6B) An application to which paragraph (hh) of subsection (2) applies may be made by

the competent authority (within the meaning of the Competition Act 2002).

(7) Where it is intended to make an application under subsection (2) in respect of any

person, the applicant shall give not less than ten days’ notice of this intention to

(8) Any person who is subject or deemed subject to a disqualification order by virtue of

this Part may apply to the court for relief, either in whole or in part, from that

disqualification and the court may, if it deems it just and equitable to do so, grant

(9) A disqualification order may be made on grounds which are or include matters

other than criminal convictions notwithstanding that the person in respect of whom

the order is to be made may be criminally liable in respect of those matters.

(9A) In considering the penalty to be imposed under this section, the court may as an

alternative, where it adjudges that disqualification is not justified, make a

(9B) The court, on the hearing of an application for a disqualification order under

subsection (2), may order that the persons disqualified or against whom a

declaration under section 150 is made as a result of the application shall bear–

(b) in the case of an application by the Director, the Director of Public

Prosecutions, a liquidator, a receiver or an examiner (in this paragraph

referred to as ‘the applicant’), in addition to the costs referred to in

specifies) of the costs and expenses incurred by the applicant–

(i) in investigating the matters the subject of the application, and

(ii) in so far as they do not fall within paragraph (a), in collecting

(10) A reference in any other enactment to section 184 of the Principal Act shall be

23 The introduction of a detailed scheme for a formal application for disqualification of a

director by the 1990 Act, as subsequently amended, together with the establishment of

the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, has made applications for

disqualification more commonplace. The existence of this statutory scheme undoubtedly

had a beneficial effect in improving corporate governance. Section 160 was an omnibus

provision covering a range of instances. In most cases, it appears to be envisaged – and

this was the normal course – that an order for disqualification would be sought as

ancillary to other matters revealing facts considered to justify such an order. Therefore,

the section contemplates an order being made after conviction in criminal proceedings, or

after civil proceedings, and provides for a court making such an order of its own motion.

The section also contemplates a formal application being made by a public officer (now

the Director of Corporate Enforcement) after matters emerged in a liquidation

administration, or inspection under the Companies Act, or other formal inquiry. The

proceedings here did not fall into any of the above categories. Instead, they were self-

standing proceedings, in which the applicant would, it appears, seek to establish, for the

first time, facts sufficient to justify a disqualification order which was of course the only

order which could be made under the section. It appears that the section is broad

enough to permit such proceedings, but it is relevant that these proceedings were very

unusual and must have appeared so when threatened by the correspondence sent by Mr.

24 From the evidence subsequently adduced, I infer, perhaps wrongly, that the sending of a

general notification under s. 160(7) of the 1990 Act occurred because Mr. Skoczylas, as

the overall tactician in the litigation, was seeking, or at least considering, further weapons

to deploy in his battle with the group holding company. It is apparent from the evidence

that the group of shareholders issuing the notices had not formed a fixed intention to

actually commence proceedings, or decided on what grounds, if any, they would be

brought. Nevertheless, the issuance of a formal notice under s. 160(7) without any

specifying information must have appeared a simple step that would be a useful salvo in

the battle, bringing additional pressure to bear upon the board members and therefore

the people who would decide both in relation to his participation in the company, and the

litigation more generally. On the other hand, the receipt of such a general notification

may well have been viewed with considerable disquiet on the part of the group holding

company and its advisors and the board members themselves. Not only did it appear to

open another front on the already extensive legal battle, but, moreover, it now appeared

to make the dispute, already a bitter battle with a substantial company and the State, a

personal dispute. The directors of a substantial company, which was in effect State-

controlled, were entitled to be conscious and protective of their reputations, and disturbed

by the prospect of becoming involved in proceedings seeking their disqualification as

directors, which would undoubtedly attract publicity, and which would have an effect not

only on the discharge of their functions as directors of the companies, but also any other

business of which they might be, or seek to become, a director, as well as impacting on

25 It is perhaps not particularly surprising, therefore, that the respondents reacted almost

immediately with a pre-emptive strike. Nor would it be surprising if Mr. Skoczylas

resented becoming embroiled in an injunction application in relation to proceedings not

yet commenced, and which, on the evidence, he had not finally decided to initiate. It is

possible, but by no means certain, that if these proceedings had been conducted on a

more professional and dispassionate basis by Mr. Skoczylas then the matter may not have

spiralled in the way it did, and the proceedings may not have proliferated, and escalated,

in the way they did. But the parties rapidly became entrenched and these proceedings

became yet one further bitter skirmish, consuming considerable resources in the ongoing

Test for interlocutory injunction restraining proceedings for disqualification

26 Mr. Skoczylas argued that the High Court judge was incorrect to apply the well-known

Campus Oil principles in considering the application for interlocutory injunction. Instead,

he argued that the appropriate test was that set out in Truck and Machinery Sales Ltd. v.

Marubeni Komatsu Ltd. [1996] 1 I.R. 12. In those proceedings, the plaintiffs sought an

interlocutory injunction to restrain the presentation of petition threatened by the

defendant to wind-up the plaintiff company in respect of a debt. As set out at paragraph

15 above, Keane J. (as he then was) considered that the Campus Oil principles were not

relevant here: “different considerations entirely apply where, as here, the object of the

application is to prevent the respondent from exercising his right of access to the courts,

27 Mr. Skoczylas argued that the logic of this judgment applies by analogy in the present

circumstances, where it is sought to restrain an application for disqualification.

28 As set out at paragraph 13 above, the judge distinguished Truck and Machinery Sales Ltd.

v. Marubeni Komatsu Ltd. [1996] 1 I.R. 12 because the injunction did not deprive the

defendants of access to the courts for the assertion or vindication of rights or claims

which they profess to pursue because those matters were capable of being determined in

other actions that had been launched by the defendants, most appropriately the s. 205

petition. He also considered that in Marubeni Komatsu, the defendants’ proprietary

interest as a creditor of the plaintiff justified the higher threshold to be met to restrain the

defendant from presenting a petition to wind up the plaintiff company. By contrast, the

defendants in the present case had “no equivalent personal interest in obtaining the

29 The Campus Oil principles are well-established, and provide a well understood and

broadly effective method of dealing with applications for interlocutory injunctions, which

almost by definition may involve considerable urgency, speed and the amassing and

presentation of much conflicting information. The key intent of the principles first set out

in the speech of Lord Diplock in American Cyanamid Ltd. v. Ethicon [1975] AC 396,

adopted with approval by this court in Campus Oil Ltd. v. Minister for Industry and Energy

(No. 2) [1983] I.R. 88 was to allow the court hearing an application for an interlocutory

injunction to avoid what could be complex, lengthy, and necessarily unsatisfactory

disputes about factual matters which were advanced only on affidavit evidence, as a

prelude to the grant of an interlocutory injunction. Instead, recognising that such disputes

would be resolved at the trial, the test focussed on the most fair way of holding the

situation between the parties pending that full hearing. As has been recognised, the

principles in Campus Oil are not a “one size fits all”, but rather are subject to exceptions

which are as important, and arguably as extensive, as the principles themselves. The

logic of the Campus Oil approach is predicated upon there being a trial of the action, and

they work most effectively in civil disputes between parties, often involving claims for

damages. The principles are less well adapted to circumstances which may involve

disputes about public law or which involve interests that are ephemeral, or where, in any

event, it is unlikely that there will be a full trial of the action. In those and other

circumstances, it is possible that rigid application of the Campus Oil principles may lead to

an injustice: the low threshold of arguability combined with a claim of a loss which cannot

be quantified or compensated for the award of monetary damages (or even a claim that

the defendant will be unable to satisfy any award for damages) can lead to the grant of

an injunction in a weak case which may nevertheless be decisive as between the parties.

For these reasons, it is important that the principles are applied with sensitivity, and that

it is recognised that there are exceptions where the principles do not apply, either

because the underlying logic is absent, or because of the specific circumstances of the

30 In Truck and Machinery Sales Ltd. v. Marubeni Komatsu Ltd. [1996] 1 I.R. 12, Keane J.

identified one such exception: an application to restrain the presentation of a petition to

wind up the plaintiff company. This decision is not challenged. Rather it is contended that

the exception is limited to winding-up petitions, and does not extend to an application

such as this to restrain an application to disqualify a director.

31 I cannot accept this submission. First, it is apparent that the principle identified by Keane

J. in Truck and Machinery Sales Ltd. v. Marubeni Komatsu Ltd. [1996] 1 I.R. 12 was of

broader application and extended to applications to restrain the issuance of proceedings

more generally. It is the case that winding-up petitions are distinguishable from ordinary

plenary proceedings in an important respect. The presentation of a petition must be

advertised, and, furthermore, once the process is initiated it normally cannot be

withdrawn by the petitioner without leave of the court and without giving the opportunity

to any other interested party to seek to support the petition. The advertising of a petition

can therefore have very serious consequences for a company, and the fact that some

time may elapse before the petition is opened in court, and may be challenged, can be

damaging to the reputation of a company and its commercial viability. These are

important matters, and explain in part why there was a developed jurisprudence in

applications to restrain the presentation of a winding-up petition.

32 Nevertheless, it is plain that Keane J. considered that the principle was one of more

general application. That is particularly because of the interest he identified, namely, the

right of a litigant to access to a court to prosecute claims. With great respect to the

decision of the High Court judge, I consider that the approach he took placed too little

value on this important interest which has constitutional protection. The fact that factual

issues in dispute between the parties can be ventilated in other proceedings is a relevant,

but not, in my view, a dispositive factor. Generally speaking, it is not for the court to

choose the form of action brought by a plaintiff, so long as that does not involve such

duplication as to amount to harassment or an abuse of the process. The commencement

of separate proceedings in an application for an interlocutory injunction undoubtedly

inhibits the right of access to court of a litigant, and therefore must be carefully

scrutinised. Normally the interests of the parties are met by a court hearing and

determining those proceedings, and if necessary it may involve applications for orders

dismissing the proceedings. Nor can it be said that the fact that the applicant for

disqualification in this case does not have the same interest as a creditor may have in

petitioning to wind-up a company. It is a sufficient distinguishing feature in this case. The

interests of a creditor in winding up a company may be minimal. Furthermore, an

application to disqualify a director may be made by the Director of Corporate Enforcement

and it would be difficult to argue that a court would be justified in requiring no more than

the Campus Oil arguability test before granting an interlocutory injunction restraining

33 Finally, there are good reasons of policy why a prima facie case should at least be shown

before an interlocutory injunction is granted to restrain the commencement of

proceedings, including, in this case, an application for the disqualification of a director. In

the normal course of events, when proceedings are commenced, all relevant issues are

determined within those proceedings, including any preliminary application to dismiss or

strike out those proceedings in limine. The commencement of a separate set of

proceedings seeking an injunction restraining the presentation or prosecution of other

proceedings which must be determined before the substantive proceedings themselves be

commenced and prosecuted, let alone determined, is in principle an undesirable

proliferation of proceedings arising out of the same matter, which accordingly requires to

be justified. Where moreover, the separate proceedings necessarily involves an

application for an interlocutory injunction, there is a further legal dispute which is at some

distance, both in time, and in terms of the legal test to be applied, from the substantive

dispute between the parties. I am satisfied that experience has shown that there are

indeed cases where justice may require that orders are made restraining the

commencement or further prosecution of separate proceedings principally because of the

damage that the existence of proceedings can cause in some cases. However, since it

involves the multiplication of proceedings, and the delay in the resolution of proceedings

which have been commenced, it is a jurisdiction which is to be invoked rarely, and, when

invoked, subjected to careful scrutiny by the courts. In such circumstances, it is

appropriate to require at least a prima facie case before the grant of an interlocutory

injunction, not least because that assessment should in most cases go a long way towards

resolving all issues between the parties. If the Campus Oil standard of arguability was

applied, it might become too easy to obtain an interlocutory injunction, and too tempting

to do so. For all these reasons, I consider therefore that the Marubeni Komatsu test

34 Applying the Marubeni Komatsu test, has it been established on a prima facie basis, that

the s. 160(7) notice given by the appellants was invalid? Mr. Skoczylas argues that s.

160(7) merely requires that notice be given of the proceedings, and does not require any

more detail. This argument faces at least two difficulties. First, it admittedly runs counter

to the observations of Fennelly J. in Director of Corporate Enforcement v. Byrne

[2009] IESC 57, [2010] 1 IR 222, set out above. In that judgment, he said that s. 160(7)

illustrates “the general principle that any person who is to be the subject of an application

under the section must be given clear notice of that fact and of the grounds on which the

application is to be made”. (Emphasis added) It is suggested by Mr. Skoczylas that this is

obiter, and should not be followed. However, quite apart from the respect which is due to

the observations of Fennelly J. on such matters, it is clear that the reasoning was closely

related to his views on the resolution of the particular case. Quite apart from such an

interpretation being consistent with the general principle of basic fairness, it is also

consistent with common sense. While it will be necessary to consider shortly the reasons

for a notice requirement, it would make little sense to have a requirement of notice of the

fact of proceedings without giving some indication of the circumstances relied upon,

including the relevant sub-paragraphs of s. 160(2) of the 1990 Act. As Fennelly J.

observed in the extract already quoted, the giving of at least ten days’ notice to the

person of the intention to apply for a disqualification order provides the person “with an

opportunity to respond”, as indeed occurred in that case. Plainly, it is not possible to

respond in any way to an indication of an intention to bring proceedings at some point

after the expiry of the ten-day notice period without any indication of the basis upon

35 It should be said that no particular formality is proscribed by the section or required by an

interpretation of it consistent with the general obligation of fairness. As already discussed,

in many cases, the application will follow on from a detailed factual dispute and the

degree of detail required in any s. 160(7) notice may not be extensive. However, in a

case such as this, where proceedings come out of the blue, I have no doubt that the

plaintiffs have established a strong prima facie case that a notice under s. 160(7) was

required to contain more than a notification that proceedings would commence, to identify

the relevant subsections of s. 160(2), and to identify, at least in general terms, the

Would defects in the s. 160(7) notice invalidate any proceedings?

36 Mr. Skoczylas relied in this regard on the decision of the Court of Appeal in England and

Wales in Secretary for State for Trade and Industry v. Langridge [1991] Ch. 402. In that

case, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales by a majority (Balcombe and Leggatt

L.JJ., Nourse L.J. dissenting) reversed the decision of the High Court judge (Mummery J.)

and held that a failure to comply with the ten-day notice requirement contained in an

application for a disqualification order under s. 16 of the Company Directors

37 The facts of that case were somewhat unusual. While s. 16 of the Company Directors

Disqualification Act 1986 is similar to s. 160(7) of the 1990 Act in requiring a ten-day

notice before the commencement of proceedings, the language is slightly different. It

“A person intending to apply for the making of a disqualification order by the court

having jurisdiction to wind up a company shall give not less than 10 days’ notice of

his intention to the person against whom the order is sought; and on the hearing of

the application the last-mentioned person may appear and himself give evidence or

38 More significantly, however, the structure of the section also differed. There was a

limitation period which provided that an application for disqualification could not be

brought two years after the date upon which a company was deemed to have become

insolvent. It was not clear, however, whether the date on which the notice was given, or

the date on which the proceedings were issued, could be included in that calculation. In

the event, it was determined after the issuance of the notice in this case that ten clear

days’ notice were given. This had the effect that, in the particular case, the last day for

service of a notice if proceedings were to be commenced before the expiry of the two-

year limitation period was 10 April 1989. In fact, a letter of that date giving notice of the

intention to apply for a disqualification order was served on the respondent, but on the

following day, 11 April 1989. It followed, therefore, that the notice was inadequate.

Mummery J. accordingly struck out the proceedings, but also granted an order under the

Act extending the limitation period for the commencement of disqualification proceedings.

39 On appeal, the majority of the Court of Appeal overturned the decision in the High Court.

There was no doubt that the notice was defective in that ten clear days’ notice had not

been given, and accordingly that s. 16(1) of the Company Directors Disqualification Act

1986 had not been complied with. The question was, however, the consequences of such

non-compliance, and, in particular, whether it could be said that the requirement was

directory or mandatory. Balcombe L.J. adopted a statement in De Smith’s Judicial Review

of Administrative Action (4th edn., Stevens and Sons Ltd., 1980) at pp. 142 to 143: -

“Although ‘nullification is the natural and usual consequence of disobedience,’

breach of procedural or formal rules is likely to be treated as a mere irregularity if

the departure from the terms of the Act is of a trivial nature, or if no substantial

prejudice has been suffered by those for whose benefit the requirements were

introduced, or if serious public inconvenience would be caused by holding them to

be mandatory, or if the court is for any reason disinclined to interfere with the act

40 Balcombe L.J. considered that the notice requirement was “an unparticularised letter…

before action”, conferring only a limited benefit on the recipient. A recipient might be able

to produce clear evidence of mistaken identity or seek to challenge by way of judicial

review the lawfulness of a decision to seek a disqualification order against him, but as he

vividly put it “beyond that the importance of the notice seems to be to limit the shock to

the intended respondent which he might otherwise sustain if the first intimation he has of

the application is when the proceedings are served on him”. In such circumstances, he

concluded that the requirement was directory, and that therefore non-compliance did not

invalidate the proceedings. Nourse L.J., for his. part preferred the reasoning of both

Harmon and Mummery JJ., who were judges experienced in the practice of the Companies

Court, and concluded that if the failure to comply with the provisions of s. 16(1) would

render the consequential application to the court a nullity. However, he considered that

the trial judge was also entitled to treat the department’s lack of knowledge of the

requirements of ten clear days’ notice as a good reason to extend the limitation period,

41 It is clear that this was a finely balanced case. It is not for this court to express any view

on its correctness as a matter of the law of England and Wales. For my part, however, I

do not consider it would be appropriate to apply the conclusion of the majority in

Secretary for State for Trade and Industry v. Langridge [1991] Ch. 402 in the different

circumstances of an application for an order under s. 160 of the 1990 Act. In the light of

the judgment of Fennelly J. in Director of Corporate Enforcement v. Byrne [2009] IESC 57,

[2010] 1 IR 222, it would not be correct to describe a notice under s. 160(7) as a

mere “unparticularised letter before action”. Furthermore, I do not think that, as

interpreted, the notice can be treated as merely intended to limit the shock to the

intended respondent which might otherwise arise on the service of proceedings. As

observed by Fennelly J., the notice period would permit the recipient to respond to

attempt to persuade the moving party that some or all of the application was without

merit, and in an appropriate case to commence proceedings such as this, or, as

contemplated in Langridge, judicial review in a case where the moving party was

exercising a public law function. These are substantial and important matters.

Furthermore, in considering whether the Oireachtas must be deemed to have intended

that a procedural provision was mandatory or merely directory, it is relevant to consider

the importance of the procedural requirement at issue. It is, however, important to frame

this question in the correct way. The issue is not whether, from the vantage point of the

court, it is apparent that the procedural requirement is of importance or benefit, but

rather whether the drafter, and therefore the Oireachtas, may have considered it to be so

even if the court were itself to take a different view, because the relevant question for the

court is whether the Oireachtas should be understood to have intended that invalidity

42 In this case, given the importance that Irish law generally accords to fair procedures and

the good name and reputation of citizens, I can see no reason to think that the Oireachtas

considered the notice requirement to be trivial or unimportant. Section 160 of the 1990

Act as originally drafted, and as it subsequently evolved, was an amalgam of a number of

different parts, which meant that an application for disqualification could be brought in

very different circumstances, and even by different applicants. Furthermore, since the

application could have a very significant consequence for an individual’s career, livelihood,

and reputation, it is unsurprising that some formal and precise steps were required.

Accordingly, I would conclude that there is no reason to depart from the general principle

that nullification was the natural and usual consequence of disobedience to a formal

requirement of the statute. Looked at from the other perspective, why would the

Oireachtas have included the requirement of notice if non compliance with it had no

effect? This is particularly so given the fact that the consequence of such nullification

would not prevent the bringing of an application which was properly notified. Accordingly,

I agree with the conclusion of Cooke J. that the defect in the s. 160(7) notices delivered

meant that any proceedings commenced would in turn be defective, and invalid.

Was the invalidity of the s. 160(7) notices a sufficient basis for the grant of an

43 Cooke J. limited his consideration to the question of the validity of the notices, and having

concluded that they were invalid, granted an injunction. Although he applied the Campus

Oil test, it is apparent that in fact he resolved the issue of law in the same way as I

would, and, accordingly, that such conclusion would be sufficient to satisfy the higher

standard of a prima facie case as Keane J. observed in Truck and Machinery Sales Ltd. v.

Marubeni Komatsu Ltd. [1996] 1 I.R. 12, a plaintiff could satisfy this standard by

demonstrating that proceedings were bound to fail. It might be thought, therefore, that a

conclusion that a statutory requirement had not been complied with, would satisfy this

test, and accordingly that an injunction should issue without more.

44 However, the fact that a defendant may have a strong procedural point is not normally a

ground for granting an injunction restraining the issuance of the proceedings. In most

cases, it will be sufficient to notify the moving party of the defect and of the intention to

apply to strike out the proceedings (unless they are withdrawn) and of an intention to fix

the moving party with the costs of any such applications which are necessary. In other

circumstances, it may be preferable indeed to allow the point to be taken at a later stage

with more serious disruption of the applicant’s litigation strategy. But since it is possible

to bring an application within the proceedings to have them dismissed, in limine as

invalidly commenced, a question arises as to why it would be necessary to grant an

interlocutory injunction in advance in separate proceedings to restrain the

commencement of the proceedings at all? The provisions of O. 50, r. 6 RSC, echoing in

this regard statutory provisions which can be traced to the Judicature Acts, if not beyond,

provide that the court may grant an injunction by interlocutory order in all cases in which

“it appears to the court to be just or convenient to do so”. Normally, if there is a remedy

at law, which can fully protect the parties legal interest, it will be unnecessary, and

therefore inappropriate, to grant an injunction, whether permanent or interlocutory. In

the case of injunctions restraining winding up petitions, there are good reasons to permit

such injunctions. For the reasons already identified, the advertising of a petition may

have serious and irreversible consequences for a company which might otherwise survive.

If, therefore, it can be demonstrated that the petition is baseless or is otherwise an abuse

of process, injunctions may be granted. While the interests of a party against whom an

invalidly constituted proceedings have been brought may certainly be said to justify an

application to bring an end to proceedings once commenced, since a party should not be

put to the time and expense and suffer the reputational damage involved in defending

proceedings which are fundamentally flawed. It cannot be said with the same degree of

assurance that it was necessary to grant an interlocutory injunction on this ground alone.

It might be said that it is unduly punctilious to draw any large distinction between a pre-

emptive application to restrain the issuance of proceedings, and an application brought to

strike out and dismiss those proceedings once commenced, since in substance the same

issue is to be determined. However, because of the value to be attached to a litigant’s

right to commence proceedings of their choice, and the public interest in avoiding the

proliferation of proceedings, I consider that it is important to establish that it is

necessary, exceptionally, to restrain the issuance of proceedings rather than obtain a

remedy within those proceedings once commenced. I do not consider that it is necessary

to decide whether in all cases a procedural irregularity on its own is sufficient to justify

the grant of a pre-emptive interlocutory injunction. While I would not discount the

importance of the reputational concerns of the individual directors, I do not think that that

in itself would always be sufficient without more to establish that the grant of an

injunction permanent or interlocutory was necessary. To take a simple example: if a

substantial and well-grounded application was in the process of being commenced by the

Director of Corporate Enforcement, but there had been a failure to comply with s. 160(7),

I do not think that, without more, it would be normally appropriate to commence separate

proceedings and grant an interlocutory injunction to restrain the bringing of those

proceedings. Furthermore, for reasons already touched on, that course would also be

inefficient and wasteful of resources. However, it is not necessary to consider whether in

the circumstances of this case the apparent invalidity of the notice, on its own would

justify the grant of an injunction, since in my view the issue in this case must be

approached in the light of all the facts, and in particular the second ground upon which

the application was advanced, and to which it is necessary to turn now.

45 The learned trial judge made no finding on this aspect of the case, considering that it was

sufficient that it had been established that there was a defect in the notice sent by the

intending moving parties. However, all the relevant evidence was before the High Court in

the form of affidavits, and this court is in the same position to come to a judgment on

that matter as the High Court was. Furthermore, the matter was fully argued in the High

Court and before this court. Accordingly, it is in my view appropriate and necessary to

46 The evidence relating to this issue must be placed against the background to the

proceedings already set out above. First, this was a highly unusual purported invocation

of the jurisdiction under s. 160 of the Act. The intended applicants stood to obtain no

direct benefit if the order was made, but by contrast the existence of the proceedings,

and any order made therein, could be extremely damaging to the individual directors.

There was extensive and bitter litigation ongoing between the intended applicants and the

corporate entities of which the intended respondents were directors. However, the

directors had themselves not been personally involved in the litigation up until this point,

and furthermore, they were ultimately responsible for making decisions in relation to the

corporate litigation. It is in my view an inescapable conclusion that the notification of the

intention to bring a disqualification application was firstly a tactical step in the broader

litigation, and second, intended to bring pressure to bear on the individual directors.

Furthermore, the first and second affidavits of Mr. Ciaran Long included averments that

the objective of issuing the notice was to put pressure on the bank and the group holding

company in relation to the proceedings which were already before the courts, and to

pressurise the bank in respect of the decision not to appoint Mr. Skoczylas as a director of

the bank and for the collateral benefit of the ongoing campaign in relation to the

recapitalisation and restructuring of the bank and attempting to damage any sales

process of the Irish Life Group. In addition to this, Mr. Skoczylas swore an affidavit which

is significant in this regard. Facing a contention that the s. 160(7) was defective and

failing to specify grounds of the application, Mr. Skoczylas sought to explain why no detail

had. It is recorded in the High Court judgment that, both in his replying affidavit and in

written and oral submissions, Mr. Skoczylas had insisted that the making of an application

in respect of disqualification by some or any of the intended applicants was by no means

certain. At para. 8 of the affidavit he stated “[t]he defendants have not yet completely

formulated or launched the intended legal action that the plaintiffs attempt to prevent and

in respect of which the plaintiffs applied for an injunction”. (Emphasis added) At para. 28

“The plaintiffs’ action is absurd and logically incoherent because the defendants

have not yet completely formulated or launched the intended legal action which the

plaintiffs attempt to prevent in respect of what the plaintiff applied for an injunction

[…] Furthermore, not all of the defendants have even yet decided to in fact launch

the intended legal action which the plaintiff attempts to prevent […[ Given that the

plaintiffs plainly have no way of knowing what the facts, claims and evidence in the

intended action by the defendants (or) some of them will be within proceedings and

injunction were initiated under false and spurious pretences. The plaintiffs

approach is nothing more than a pure farce and a mockery of justice.”

“[…] the defendants of course have no obligation to share details of the proceedings

that they intend to launch and may or may not have decided to launch.”

“[…] it is possible that some of the persons who informed the director plaintiffs

about their intention to launch the said proceedings would decide in fact not to

follow through on that communicated intention.” (Emphasis in italics added).

49 These remarkable averments become if anything more significant in the light of the

withdrawal of some of the other individual parties from this appeal. They also put the

defects in the s.160 notice in a different light. The absence of detailed grounds was not a

mere oversight, but rather reflected the fact that the grounds had not been formulated

finally (or perhaps at all), or agreed by the purported applicants giving notice. It was not

even clear that the applicants collectively intended to issue the application of which notice

50 This background makes more serious the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs in these

proceedings of the wider circulation of the notices by and on behalf of the intended

applicants and Mr. Skoczylas in particular. The existence of the notices was brought to the

attention of parties who had no connection to the proceedings, and whose only connection

to any of the parties hereto was their involvement in the proposed sale of the Irish Life

Insurance business as prospective purchasers. It is recorded in the judgment of the High

Court that on 15 January 2013 Mr. Skoczylas wrote to the directors referring to the

notification served on the directors under s. 160 and informing them that he was copying

the executives of Canada Life “in the context of the reported discussions regarding the

resale of Irish Life Group limited to Canada Life”. The letter indicated on its face that it

had been copied to the Chief Executive of Canada Life, and the President and Chief

Executive of its parent company Great-West Lifeco. Notices which were themselves

defective, which purported to notify an intention to bring proceedings which had not been

fully formulated and which it appears some or all of the applicants had not yet decided to

launch, were nevertheless circulated to parties who had no connection to those

proceedings and, with a view, plainly, to damaging the individual directors’ reputations,

and attempting to interfere with a transaction, which was not, itself, in any way

connected with the asserted s. 160 proceedings. This aspect of the matter brings these

proceedings very close to the situation which arises in applications to restrain the

presentation and advertisement of a winding up petition. The statutory procedure was

being used, for a purpose for a collateral and in my view improper purpose and

accordingly constituted an abuse of process and that factor, together with the invalidity of

the notice, would make it appropriate to restrain the prosecution of the proceedings.

51 However, even if it established that an applicant can satisfy the court that there is a

prima facie case for the grant of an injunction, it is also necessary to consider the balance

of convenience. This involves considering the harm that might be occasioned to the party

restrained by interlocutory injunction, should it transpire at the hearing of the action that

there was no invalidity or abuse of process. Leaving to one side the manner in which a

finding of prima facie case should operate in any such calculation, the interest at stake

from the respondent’s point of view is that identified already: the entitlement of every

litigant to commence the proceeding he or she chooses and prosecute them in the way

which appears best. For reasons already discussed that is not an unqualified right, but

within the limits permitted, it is an exercise of the right to litigate claims and an important

value that should be vindicated. However, in these proceedings it has much more limited

weight. There is little difference in fact between the resolution of these proceedings and

an application to strike out proceedings as invalidly constituted or an abuse of the

process, which is a procedure which no litigant can preclude and is part and parcel of the

exercise by litigants of their right of access to court. S.160 proceedings are unusual since

even if successful they provide no individual benefit to the person commencing them.

They are at best proceeding brought in the public interest conferring no private benefit.

By contrast they may impose a considerable burden on individual directors obliged to

defend them. Furthermore, there are now multiple sets of proceeding in existence

commenced by Mr. Skoczylas and or Scotchstone those who support them in which

almost every aspect of their dealings with Permanent TSB has been ventilated. Such

grounds as are asserted as justifying the application under s160 are a repetition of

matters raised in those proceedings. It was also relevant in this regard as Cooke J.

observed that any of the factual issues raised by the intended applicants for

disqualification, could be determined in particular in the s. 205 proceedings, and nothing

would have prevented a consequential application to seek disqualification of directors, on

those grounds if they were established in those proceedings and found to justify such a

course. Such an application, after the determination of relevant matters in the

proceedings would indeed be a more normal invocation of the jurisdiction under s.160. It

is particularly noteworthy therefore that those proceedings have not been advanced in the

intervening time, now more than six years, which has elapsed since their commencement.

The interest asserted by Mr. Skoczylas in this case was therefore of much lesser weight

and immediacy than an individual precluded from issuing the single set of proceeding he

or she wished to issue, and is accordingly of lesser weight than the interest of the

directors in this case, and so the balance of convenience favours the grant of an

injunction. If there was any doubt on where this balance lay, it would be appropriate to

take into account the fact that the applicants for an injunction have established a strong

prima facie case. For these reasons I conclude that Cooke J. was correct to grant the

52 In December 2018, however, and shortly before this appeal was due for hearing in the

Court of Appeal, Mr. Skoczylas submitted a further lengthy affidavit in which he sought to

adduce evidence of matters which he alleged to have occurred or came to light after the

decision of Cooke J. in this case, and which moreover he contended he was entitled to

adduce on this appeal pursuant O. 58 r. 30(b). He pointed out that, since the injunction

had been obtained restrained the issuance of the proceedings, the grounds of the

proposed s. 160 application had not been identified. He then sought to refer to evidence

adduced in the main proceedings which had been determined by O’Malley J., and which it

is to be recalled, he sought to challenge the direction order made on 26 July 2011,

pursuant to s.7 of the Credit Institutions (Stabilisation) Act 2010.

53 Mr. Skoczylas sought to contend that contradictory and mutually exclusive statements

had been made in particular by the chairman of the holding company Mr. Alan Cook, first

at the AGM on 18 May 2011, which were later directly contradicted in an affidavit sworn

by him on 20 November 2013, in support of the Minister’s defence of the challenge

brought to the direction. The essential contradiction he asserts relates to statements as to

the solvency and viability of the company on 20 March 2011 when PCAR/PLAR exercises

were carried out, at which time it was contended on behalf of the companies, and it is

said, by Mr. Cook in particular, that the company was solvent, strong, and did not require

the capitalisation recommended in the sum of €4 billion. These and similar statements are

then contrasted with the sworn evidence in the main proceedings, in which Mr. Cook

supported the view that the company would have collapsed, if the direction order had not

been made had the Minister thereafter introduced substantial capital into the company, in

54 It is not only asserted that these statements are mutually inconsistent but it is said that

they “must have been discernibly misleading/mendacious”. It is further asserted that they

constituted criminal offences. A similar assertion is made in relation to the audited

accounts of the company published in 2011, and which it is argued could not have given a

true and fair view of the business of the company if the subsequent statements in the

2013 affidavit as to the state of the company were correct. Alternatively, if the accounts

were accurate, it is suggested that the November 2013 affidavit statements, must be

55 The broad background to this as already touched on at the outset of this judgment is that

the Irish Permanent Group was unusual in the banking industry in Ireland, particularly at

the time of the crisis in the financial sector, in that it had not lent to developers in the

same way as other banks, was not involved with NAMA. Moreover, the group had a

profitable insurance business. It is clear that the group acquiesced only reluctantly in the

Central Bank’s requirement for recapitalisation, and the Minister’s proposals for the

issuance to him of shares in return for the introduction of the necessary capital.

56 These matters arose in the main proceedings, because one of the issues was that Mr.

Skoczylas contended that the direction made by the Minister in July 2011 should be set

aside because Mr. Skoczylas contended, as set out in the judgment of O’Malley J., that

the company was at the time both solvent and viable. His claim in those proceedings that

the Direction Order was invalid on these and other grounds was ultimately rejected by the

High Court, after the reference to the CJEU, and his appeal to the Court of Appeal was

dismissed. It is noteworthy that O’Malley J. made a finding that “on the balance of

probabilities, failure to recapitalise by the deadline would have led to a failure of the

bank, whether by reason of a run on the bank by depositors, a revocation of its licence, a

call for repayment of the various Notes, a cessation of funding under the ELA scheme or a

combination of some or all of these possibilities”. It is apparent that the affidavit delivered

in December 2018 now seeks to recycle some of the matters adverted to in the

proceedings under the guise of matters alleged to have only come to light in the recent

past. The respondents for their part contest the allegations made by Mr. Skoczylas, but

also challenge his entitlement to adduce evidence at this stage of the proceedings.

57 I doubt whether indeed it can be said that these matters can be said to have “come to

light” or “occurred” after the judgment of Cooke J. was delivered in this case. Clearly, the

accounts which Mr. Skoczylas alleges may not have given a true and fair view of the

business of the company, and the statements which he alleged may have been false and

mendacious, were made prior to the judgment delivered by Cooke J. Insomuch as the

contention is predicated on the fact that there is an alleged contradiction between these

matters, and the affidavit sworn in the main proceedings, which itself post-dated the

judgment of Cooke J., then any alleged inconsistency, contradiction, still less mendacity,

was apparent from the date of the delivery of the affidavit in 2013, and there has been

58 Furthermore, it is apparent that the increasingly strident allegations of wrongdoing made

by Mr. Skoczylas, are all based on the fundamental assertion of mutual contradiction. At a

minimum, and notwithstanding the skill and tenacity with which Mr. Skoczylas seeks to

present his argument, it is not apparent to me that any such contradiction is necessarily

self-evident. It is obvious that matters were moving quickly in the financial world in 2011.

It is not at all impossible to contend on the one hand, that the business of the group was

essentially solvent and viable, and that therefore the PCAR assessment of substantial

recapitalisation was unnecessary, but to accept that once the requirement of

recapitalisation became binding, then the only viable source of such funding within the

time period was the State, and that moreover the company would likely collapse without

it. These matters do not appear to me to provide a very solid foundation for allegations of

mendacity, and still less criminality. It is noteworthy that the comprehensive judgment of

O’Malley J. addressing these events makes no such finding of inconsistency or

contradiction, and does not criticise Mr. Cook’s evidence, the position of the board of the

59 In any event, in my view, these matters tend to undermine, rather than support, the

case made by Mr. Skoczylas in this appeal. Since he introduces them as matters which

have only occurred or come to light since the judgment herein, it is apparent that they

cannot have been present to justify the issuance of the notices or the threat to issue the

s. 160 proceedings in early 2013. Furthermore, even if the evidence can be properly

adduced in these proceedings, (and I make no determination in that regard), I do not

think it can, by its nature, be of assistance in these proceedings. It does not, and cannot,

supply the defect in the notices which were issued, or render them valid. Furthermore, if

it is established that the threatened commencement of proceedings into 2011 amounted

to an abuse of the process which could properly be restrained by the court, then the

threatening of proceedings for a collateral purpose cannot be cured by asserting, however

implausibly, that later occurring events might amount to matters which could have

60 Returning therefore to the issues posed for resolution at paragraph 21 of this judgment, I

(1) The appropriate test to be applied for the grant of an interlocutory injunction

restraining the issuance of proceedings, such as those under s. 160 of the

Companies Act 1990, is that set out by Keane J. in Truck and Machinery Sales v

Marubeni Komatsu [1996] 1 IR 12, that is that an applicant must satisfy the

standard of showing a prima facie case, rather than the arguable case test applied

in Campus Oil v The Minister for Industry and Energy (No. 2) [1983] IR 88;

(2) Applying that test, that the plaintiffs in the proceedings have shown a prima facie

case that the purported notice issued under s. 160 (7) was invalid, and that such

invalidity would vitiate the proceedings, and that furthermore, the threatened

proceedings were for a collateral and improper purpose, and would constitute an

(3) The balance of convenience favoured the grant of an injunction in the particular

61 I am therefore satisfied that there was jurisdiction to restrain the issuance of proceedings

under s. 160, of the 1990 Act, and that in the circumstances of this case, the proceedings

were justified, and the High Court judge was entitled to make the order he did.

Accordingly, I would dismiss the appeal and affirm the order of the High Court.

Result: Application Dismissed

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Supreme Court of Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Ireland Decisions >> Permanent TSB plc & Ors v Skoczylas & Ors [2019] IESC 78 (05 November 2019) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2019/2019_IESC_78.html Cite as: [2019] IESC 78

Supreme Court of Ireland Decisions