Chase Cambria
  • Log in
  • Not a member yet?
go
  • Contact
  • Webmail
  • Archive
 
  • Home
  • Overview
  • Journal Issues
  • Subscriptions
  • Editorial Board
  • Author Guidelines

International Corporate Rescue

Journal Issues

  • Vol 1 (2004)
  • Vol 2 (2005)
  • Vol 3 (2006)
  • Vol 4 (2007)
  • Vol 5 (2008)
  • Vol 6 (2009)
  • Vol 7 (2010)
  • Vol 8 (2011)
  • Vol 9 (2012)
  • Vol 10 (2013)
  • Vol 11 (2014)
  • Vol 12 (2015)
  • Vol 13 (2016)
  • Vol 14 (2017)
  • Vol 15 (2018)
  • Vol 16 (2019)
  • Vol 17 (2020)
  • Vol 18 (2021)
  • Vol 19 (2022)
  • Vol 20 (2023)
  •         Issue 1
  •         Issue 2
  •         Issue 3
  •         Issue 4
  •         Issue 5
  •         Issue 6
  • Vol 21 (2024)
  • Vol 22 (2025)

Vol 20 (2023) - Issue 6

Article preview

In the Matter of MAC Interiors Limited 2023 IEHC 395 (003)

Brendan Colgan, Partner, and Constance Edwards, Trainee Solicitor, Matheson LLP, Dublin, Ireland

Synopsis
The High Court of Ireland in In the Matter of MACInteriors Limited1 was asked to consider whether it was within the power of the Irish courts to appoint an examiner to a company which had not been incorporated in Ireland. In a precedent setting decision, Quinn J. appointed an examiner, by way of the direct appointment procedure in the Irish Companies Act 2014 (the 'Act'), to Mac Interiors Limited (the 'Company'), a Northern Ireland incorporated company.
In his written judgment delivered 11 July 2023, Quinn J. noted that the court was being asked to consider 'a significant and previously undecided point regarding the jurisdiction of the court to make the appointment'.
It was held that by virtue of the doctrine of direct effect, the European Insolvency Regulation Recast, EU 2015/848 (the 'EIR') formed part of Irish law and that this justified the appointment. The court held that Article 3 of the EIR established a harmonised rule, conferring jurisdiction by reference to the location of the debtor's centre of main interests, and did not permit distinguishing between companies on the basis of their place of incorporation.
In addition to this, Quinn J. indicated that, even if there was any doubt as to the question of the direct application of the EIR, section 508(2) of the Act removed any such doubt with regard to the court's jurisdiction to make the appointment by specifically stating that the Act must be read subject to the provisions of the EIR.
Although the decision accords with that of the High Court of England and Wales in BRAC Rent-a-Car International2 (which pre-dates Brexit and therefore the disapplication of the EIR to the UK), doubt had previously been cast over the Irish courts' jurisdiction to make an order appointing an examiner to a foreign registered company other than by way of the 'related company' procedure. That procedure, which allows for an examiner to be appointed to a company related to a company to which an examiner has already been appointed, applies to any related company that the High Court of Ireland has jurisdiction to wind up and has long applied to foreign registered companies with a sufficient connection to Ireland.

Buy this article
Get instant access to this article for only EUR 55 / USD 60 / GBP 45
Buy this issue
Get instant access to this issue for only EUR 175 / USD 230 / GBP 155
Buy annual subscription
Subscribe to the journal and recieve a hardcopy for
EUR 730 / USD 890 / GBP 560
If you are already a subscriber
log In here

International Corporate Rescue

"International Corporate Rescue is truly unique in its concept and an indispensable read."

Neil Cooper, Consultant at INSOL International

 

 

Copyright 2006 Chase Cambria Company (Publishing) Limited. All rights reserved.