The siblings, who were both in court yesterday, were directors of Gilson Motor Company Ltd. Its business included trading in high-value vehicles, and engaged in a car parking and valeting service from a premises at Sir John Rogerson’s Quay, Dublin.
In 2011, the company, with a registered address at Annaly Drive, Onger Wood, Dublin 15, was wound up by the High Court after it failed to pay €141,937 in taxes.
Ms Gilson and her brother are listed as directors of the company and they did not contest the court order. The court appointed Mr Gary Lennon as liquidator.
Arising out of the liquidation, Mr Lennon wants the court to make orders under Section 160 of the 1990 Companies Act seeking to have Mr Gilson disqualified from acting as a company director for a period of five years.
In the alternative, he seeks an order under section 150 of the same act seeking to have certain restriction imposed on Mr Gilson from acting as a company director, also for a period of five years.
In respect of Ms Gilson, Mr Lennon seeks to have certain restriction orders only. She has opposed the application. The case came before Mr Justice Paul Gilligan, who reserved his decision following submissions from the parties.
Brian McGuckian BL, for the liquidator, said Mr Lennon was of the view that Mr Gilson was “unfit to be concerned in the management of a company”. He had not acted honestly or responsibly in relation to the company, counsel said.
Counsel said the liquidator was seeking the orders against the siblings on grounds including that no proper books and records were kept by the company. Counsel added that company funds were diverted into accounts for the purpose of defrauding revenue, the main creditor of the company, for the purposes of deliberate avoidance of paying the company’s taxes.
In a 10-month period between June 2010 and July 2011, €375,000 were lodged to accounts in the name of Damien Gilson Parking Solutions, which Mr Lennon says were in fact the proceeds of company sales.
Counsel said the liquidator was seeking orders against Ms Gilson because she had failed to take a proactive role in relation to the company. Nor did she act responsibly in relation to the affairs of the company, counsel added.