Coleman v Pyriat Ltd and Anor (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff is a former director and shareholder of the Defendant company, incorporated in The State in January 2006. The Plaintiff and another company (Company C), of which the Plaintiff was sole shareholder and director, purchased a property in The State in 2006. The Wycolla interest (Company C) was later transferred to the Defendant in 2019. In 2021 the Plaintiff transferred one share in the Defendant to Company A, and in 2024 she transferred her remaining shareholding in the Defendant to Company A. The documents governing those share transactions are governed by the law of The State.

Company A later brought a claim against the Defendant; that claim has been settled. In December 2025 the Irish property was sold for €2,750,000. €510,086.99 of the sale proceeds are held by solicitors who are the notice party to these proceedings (Company B) and are subject to an interim Mareva injunction granted on 22 January 2026; the balance of the proceeds was transferred to the Defendant.

The Plaintiff claims to be the Defendant's principal creditor for approximately €5 million arising from a director's loan shown in the Defendant's 2023 accounts. On 9 January 2026 the Defendant made a written demand against the Plaintiff for €3,861,339.54. On 14 January 2026 the Plaintiff commenced proceedings in The State relying on contractual jurisdiction clauses; on 16 January 2026 the Plaintiff issued a statutory demand in The State seeking payment of €5,288,048 from the Defendant.

The Plaintiff applied to this Court for Mareva injunctive relief under Article 35 of Brussels/Recast to restrain the Defendant from dissipating the funds held in Company B's client account pending determination of the proceedings in The State. Judge Bolger refused the application.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether, under Article 35 of Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 (Brussels/Recast), the Court should grant a Mareva injunction to preserve funds within the jurisdiction pending proceedings in another Member State.
2. Whether the Plaintiff has demonstrated a "good arguable case" in the foreign (The State) proceedings sufficient to justify the Mareva injunction.
3. Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of the funds such that injunctive relief is necessary to prevent thwarting recovery.
4. Whether the balance of convenience favours granting the Mareva injunction.
5. Whether a Mareva injunction would impermissibly operate as security or otherwise improperly improve the Plaintiff's position.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Plaintiff asserts she is the Defendant's principal creditor for circa €5 million and that the Defendant's written demand of €3,861,339.54 is a fraudulent device intended to extinguish her entitlement and enable Attorney Sagnard (the principal shareholder) or Company A to appropriate the sale proceeds.
• The Plaintiff contends Company A's prior claim and subsequent settlement with the Defendant were intended to circumvent the Court's interim order.
• The Plaintiff relies on the Luxembourg (The State) proceedings (an actio pauliana under Article 1167 of the Civil Code) and seeks preservation of the interim Mareva pending determination of those proceedings, which may take many months.

Defendant's Arguments

• The Defendant submits the Plaintiff has not established a good arguable case in the foreign proceedings and highlights the absence of an Affidavit of Laws and the inadequacy of the affidavit sworn by the Plaintiff's foreign lawyer.
• The Defendant argues a Mareva injunction cannot be used to create security or to make recovery easier for the Plaintiff, relying on the authority of Laemthong International Lines Co Ltd v Artis [2004] A11 ER.
• The Defendant points to the settlement with Company A, removing the risk of dissipation to that party, and asserts the Isle of Man (where the Defendant is incorporated) is the appropriate jurisdiction for certain reliefs.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Laemthong International Lines Co Ltd v Artis [2004] A11 ER	That a Mareva injunction should not be used to create security or to make recovery easier for the applicant.	The Defendant relied on this authority to argue the injunction sought would improperly advance the Plaintiff's recovery; the Court considered this principle in the balance of convenience analysis.
Ninemia Maritime Corp v Trave Gmbh [1983] 2 Lloyd's Rep 600	Defines the threshold for "good arguable case" as more than barely capable of serious argument (not necessarily over 50% likelihood of success).	The Court adopted this articulation of the threshold when assessing whether the Plaintiff had established a good arguable case in the foreign proceedings.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Judge Bolger applied the conventional Mareva test (as summarised from Kirwin): (i) substantive cause of action; (ii) good arguable case; (iii) assets within the jurisdiction; (iv) anticipated disposal to prevent recovery rather than for normal business; and (v) behaviour of the Defendant and balance of convenience. The Court accepted that the foreign proceedings raised a substantive cause of action and that the Defendant had assets, so the critical inquiries were (a) whether the Plaintiff had shown a good arguable case, and (b) whether there was a real risk of dissipation and, if so, whether the balance of convenience favoured injunction.

On the "good arguable case" point the Court found the Plaintiff bore the burden of proof and had not discharged it. The Luxembourg (The State) proceedings were pleaded as an actio pauliana and sought primary relief against Company A rather than the Defendant; the only liquidated claim against the Defendant was a modest €5,000 procedural damages claim plus costs. The affidavit of the Plaintiff's foreign lawyer did not explain Luxembourg law or the legal basis for the optimism expressed; it was not an Affidavit of Laws and contained insufficient analysis to enable the Court to assess the strength of the foreign claim. The Court therefore concluded there was insufficient evidence to find a good arguable case.

On dissipation, the Court noted the settlement between the Defendant and Company A removed any risk that funds would be paid to Company A. The Plaintiff feared transfer of funds to The State (the Defendant's place of incorporation), but mere transfer to that jurisdiction did not prove an intention to put funds beyond reach. The absence of an affidavit from Attorney Sagnard did not, of itself, establish an intention to dissipate. The Court observed the Plaintiff retained remedies in the Defendant's jurisdiction (including winding-up steps) if funds were moved there.

In assessing the balance of convenience the Court weighed: (i) the Plaintiff's intention to seek winding-up in The State; (ii) the settlement with Company A removing a pathway for dissipation to that party; and (iii) the risk that the Plaintiff sought preferential treatment equivalent to security. These factors weighed against granting the Mareva injunction.

The Plaintiff's non-disclosure of a Subordination Agreement in the ex parte application was noted; the Court said that, had the other proofs been made out, that omission alone would not necessarily have defeated an otherwise properly granted injunction.

Holding and Implications

REFUSED

Holding: The Court refused the Plaintiff's interlocutory application for a Mareva injunction under Article 35 of Brussels/Recast.

Implications: The immediate effect is that the interim Mareva relief sought to preserve the €510,086.99 held in Company B's client account was not continued by this Court. The Court indicated an indicative view that the Defendant, having successfully defended the injunction in its entirety, is entitled to its costs and listed a further hearing on costs and any other orders (10:00am on 20 May 2026), with written submissions due 48 hours in advance. The opinion does not purport to establish any new precedent beyond its application of established principles.

Representation (as recorded)

Counsel for the Plaintiff: Attorney King

Counsel for the Defendant: Attorney Rooney

Presiding Judge

Judge Bolger