Application for information from receiver is rejected

A High Court judge has rejected an application by a Dublin Gas Company director to have the company's receiver provide more information about the sale of the assets of the company and about the fees he has charged over the past 13 years.

Mr Justice Budd found that Dublin Gas Company director and shareholder Mr Donal Kinsella had failed to show that the information was required for a specific purpose.

Mr Kinsella, who bought more than 400,000 shares in Dublin Gas in the early 1980s for about £300,000, had also failed to show the receiver had been acting unreasonably in refusing to give him further information in his capacity as director and shareholder, the judge ruled.

Although rejecting Mr Kinsella's requests, Mr Justice Budd said this did not preclude an application being made on behalf of the company for material information which may be relevant to its directors in exercising their responsibilities when management of the company was being returned to them.

In April 1986, Bord Gais Eireann, as a debenture-holder in Dublin Gas, invoked its rights under the debenture and put in Mr Bernard Somers as receiver. Mr Somers is still acting as receiver although the assets of Dublin Gas were sold more than a decade ago.

Last month the receiver told the High Court that several aspects of Dublin Gas's business were still being tidied up and completed, particularly outstanding Revenue claims as well as outstanding claims arising out of a gas explosion which occurred at apartments on Raglan Road, Dublin, on August 1st, 1987.

In refusing Mr Kinsella's application for more information, Mr Somers pointed out he had already furnished appropriate information to the company back in October 1993 and had expressed a willingness to give further information to the company after clarification about what further information was sought.

Turning down Mr Kinsella's challenge to that refusal, Mr Justice Budd said there had been a failure to show that the receiver had not been acting reasonably in refusing to give further information to the applicant in his capacity as director and shareholder.

It was doubtful whether even Dublin Gas, to whom the receiver clearly owed a duty to give accounts regarding his dealings with the company's assets, would itself be able to make out a case that the receiver was acting unreasonably at this stage in refusing to delve back into the documents with regard to the sale of the assets conducted more than 10 years ago, the judge added.

Mr Justice Budd said different considerations might well apply if Mr Kinsella had been able to prove that the refusal to give further information was actuated by bad faith on the part of the receiver. But counsel for Mr Kinsella had been careful to point out no such allegation was being made against the receiver.