A STAY on the liquidation of Liam Carroll’s heavily insolvent Zoe development group has been granted for at least 10 days as the first of what could be a series of appeals will be heard by the Supreme Court on October 2nd.
The court yesterday agreed to hear an appeal by Dutch-owned ACCBank against a High Court ruling last month permitting the Zoe group to make an unprecedented second application to appoint an examiner after a first application was rejected by both the High Court and the Supreme Court.
Chief Justice John Murray, sitting with Mrs Justice Susan Denham and Mr Justice Nial Fennelly, granted a stay on the winding up of two companies at the top of the group, Vantive Holdings and Morston Investments.
Mr Justice Murray said the Zoe group’s appeals were having “a very heavy effect on important cases” and that other parties were having to wait a significant time to have cases heard by the court.
Michael Cush SC, representing Vantive and Morston, told the three-judge court that it was appealing the High Court’s decision to reject the second petition to appoint an examiner and, if this was unsuccessful, the decision to wind up the two companies.
He said that if a stay on Mr Justice Frank Clarke’s winding up order was not granted, the entire Zoe Group, comprising 51 companies, would collapse.
A stay was required to allow the appeal against the High Court’s refusal to appoint an examiner to proceed, said Mr Cush.
If ACC successfully overturns the High Court’s decision to permit the second bid for examinership, the group faces collapse and the winding up orders granted last week will take effect.
If the Supreme Court upholds Mr Justice John Cooke’s decision to allow the second appeal, Zoe will proceed to appeal Mr Justice Clarke’s rejection of the group’s survival plan and appointment of an examiner.
Mr Justice Murray said yesterday that this appeal would be heard “as early as possible” in the week or two after ACC’s appeal.
Rossa Fanning, for ACC, said the bank would argue that the group’s second examinership bid was an abuse of process given that the case had already been considered and rejected by the courts.
