AN CHÚIRT UACHTARACH
THE SUPREME COURT
O’Flaherty J.,
Barrington J,
Keane J,

(159/98)

BETWEEN
LIAM MADDEN
Plaintiff/Appellant
.V.

ANGLO IRISH BANK PLC
WILLIAM LACEY
Defendants/Respondents
and
ASTRA CONTRACTION SERVICES

Notice Party to Motion/Respondent

Judgment (ex-tempore) delivered on the 29th day of June, 1998. by O’Flaherty J. 

Seldom has the old Latin maxim - which I will content myself with rendering in English - that it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to Litigation have such application as in this long drawn out and convoluted case.
Essentially what we are asked to do is to decide whether what was ordered by the Court on the 23rd April, 1998, means what it says. The wording of the order is quite clear:

“it is ordered that the receiver do complete the contract [that he had with Astra Construction Limited] and that the official liquidator should join in the completion thereof and do convey to Astra Construction Services Limited such interest as the liquidator

2
may retain in the strip of land referred to in the receiver’s application herein.”

It is quite clear as well from the judgment of the Court, which was delivered by Mr. Justice Keane and assented to by the other two other members of the Court, that this was a positive direction. There was no question of a choice in the matter: it had to be done. Astra had come to Court as well and they had their contract and they wanted completion of it. That is what this Court directed should be done.
Unfortunately, Mr. Madden has seen fit to bring these proceedings. Mr. Gordon has, I think, correctly described them as highly vexatious. I think that is not to overstate the situation. They are simply there, so Mr. Gordon submits, to thwart the receiver. Interest is running on this loan at about £12,000 per month. So that is a very serious situation. It is more serious that an order of this Court should be regarded as not something that should be enforced. Mr. Justice McCracken had no difficulty in taking the view that he was bound by it and that is why he refused an injunction.
The points that are being floated before us now are that the debenture was illegal because the company had decided to benefit its shareholders as well as itself. Then there is a point about s. 60 of the Companies Act, 1963, that the

3
company had advanced money to purchase its own shares and that that is illegal.
If there is anything in these points, they sound in damages. There can be no question of an injunction. I am not suggesting there is anything in either of these points. It should be said as well that Mr. Madden knew what was going on all along. The petition to wind up the company was presented as long ago as 25th May, 1995. He arranged for a watching brief on the course of the proceedings before Miss Justice Laffoy.
It is essential that this matter be clarified for once and for all and that the sale should be closed forthwith.

I would dismiss the appeal.