Elliott brothers resolve building company dispute

A High Court dispute between brothers Patrick and Paul Elliott relating to the running of a company in the Elliott group of building and property companies has been resolved.

Patrick Elliott had sued Paul Elliott aimed at securing the appointment of a third director to Elliott Construction Ltd (ECL), a company involved in managing property assets.

Patrick, the chief executive and 60 per cent shareholder of ECL, sought an order under Section 135 of the Companies Act to allow a general meeting of the company to take place with one shareholder present.

He claimed, because of an ongoing dispute with Paul, he wanted to appoint a new director to the company’s board to ensure its survival. Paul, who owns the remaining 40 per cent of the firm and is a director with Patrick, denied any wrongdoing and opposed the application.

Resolved

Following discussions yesterday, Mark O’Mahony BL, for Patrick, said the matter had been resolved and could be struck out.

Micheál O Connell BL, for Paul, said his client was consenting to that order.

The settlement is confidential and Mr Justice Paul Gilligan welcomed the resolution of “a difficult situation”.

Earlier, opening the case, Mr O’Mahony said ECL deals with a number of properties. He said differences arose between the brothers arising out of works done at the Shelbourne Plaza in Ringsend in 2008 and attempts to resolve and mediate the dispute had failed.

The company is solvent and fulfilling its obligations to its banking creditors and, in order to ensure it could continue in business, Patrick wanted to appoint a third director of the company, counsel said.

Company meetings

Patrick alleged Paul had frustrated that appointment taking place by not attending company meetings. A new director could not be appointed unless Paul attended a general meeting of the company, counsel said.

Mr O’Connell, for Paul, said the company’s articles of association specified a quorum of two was required at a general meeting. Paul was prepared to attend general meetings and had not attended one meeting because of a family medical situation.

Paul agreed a new director would help “pour oil in the water” but was not agreeable to the person proposed by his brother because he believed they lacked the necessary independence and was concerned he, Paul, would be frozen out when it came to making decisions about the company.

After hearing Paul was prepared to attend company meetings, Mr Justice Gilligan invited the parties to come to an agreement on the best way forward.