Charles Kelly Ltd v Companies Act 2014 (Approved)

The company, by affidavit, says that the bill is excessive, should never have been marked in the office, should now be sent to adjudication, and that they will in consequence seek to overturn the judgment and put the charges on what they claim to be a more reasonable footing. Much of that sum may have been recoverable from the opposing party in the litigation referred to but was not due to the default referenced.

The Court asked if the money, perhaps �400,000, released it happened on the same day as this hearing, 2 March 2026, would be applied to the debt to the solicitors. No assurance was received. The plan of the company is to overturn the judgment by default and contest the bill and no monies will be paid on account or put in escrow pending outcome. A personal sense of grievance emerges towards the solicitors and dogs any rational compromise or resolution: but more significant is an approach of ignoring the edge of the cliff that this application to wind up the company represents.

For completeness, section 572(1) of the Companies Act 2014, as amended by the Employment (Collective Redundancies and Miscellaneous Provisions) and Companies (Amendment) Act 2024 provides statutory discretion in considering a winding-up petition:

but the court shall not refuse to make a winding-up order on the ground only that the assets of the company have been mortgaged to an amount equal to or in excess of those assets, or that the company has no assets.

(a) the court is satisfied that the company has no obligations in relation to a bank asset that has been transferred to the National Asset Management Agency or a NAMA group entity, or