Burke to appeal court order restricting his role in firms

FIANNA FÁIL activist Joe Burke is to appeal a High Court order restricting him from involvement in the affairs of any company for five years unless certain capital funding conditions are met.

Mr Justice Kevin Feeney made the restriction order against Mr Burke yesterday but put a stay on it for 21 days to allow Mr Burke to file his notice of appeal.

Once that is done, the stay will continue pending the outcome of the Supreme Court appeal, the judge said. The appeal is unlikely to be heard for some time because of the volume of appeals before the Supreme Court.

A restriction order, under section 150 of the Companies Act, restricts a person from involvement in the management of a company for five years unless that company meets certain capital funding conditions.

Legal sources say the order places no legal restriction on Mr Burke's chairmanship of the Dublin Port Company, as that company meets those funding requirements.

The section 150 order was sought by Kenneth Fennell, liquidator of Mr Burke's building company, J H Burke Sons Limited, which traded profitably from 1995 until 2004 when its main business of pub refurbishment was seriously affected by the smoking ban.

The company was liquidated in December 2006 with debts of some € 2.3 million.

On Wednesday, Mr Justice Feeney ruled that a section 150 order was merited because Mr Burke had not acted responsibly, in clear breach of the Companies Act, in relation to aspects of the conduct of the affairs of the company. He noted it was accepted Mr Burke had acted honestly in the conduct of the company's affairs.

The judge found Mr Burke had acted irresponsibly in not arranging for the preparation and filing of accounts, including audited accounts, for the company for 2004 and 2005; in failing to inquire about the true financial position of the company and in allowing the company to trade and build up tax debts of €279,000 while insolvent.

He said the company was insolvent, on the books at least, from August 2004 on. Mr Burke knew the company was in trouble but was unaware of the extent of its difficulties through 2004, 2005 and 2006. The court ruled that a director acting responsibly must know the true financial position of a company, he ruled.

Bernard Donleavy, for Mr Burke, said the order had "considerable consequences" for his client and had attracted considerable attention. He asked for a stay on the order pending appeal. He also argued there should be no order for costs made against Mr Burke.