A man whose company bought some €200,000 of shares in Irish Life & Permanent in 2010 is to appeal a High Court Judge's ruling that he is not legally entitled to represent the company in proceedings challenging the Government's recapitalisation of the bank.
Piotr Skoczylas, the controlling shareholder of Maltese-registered Scotchstone Capital Funds Ltd, said today he intends to appeal Mr Justice Kevin Feeney's ruling that he cannot represent Scotchstone in the case to the Supreme Court as such an appeal was in the public interest.
Ruling on the issue, Mr Justice Feeney said he was bound by a Supreme Court decision of 1968 (the Battle case) which found a limited company could not be represented in court proceedings by an officer of that company.
The Judge said that claim of inability to pay lawyers fees advanced by Scotchstone did not constitute a rare and exceptional circumstance allowing Mr Skocyzlas to represent the company.
Today Mr Skoczylas said he wished to adopt a practical approach and said that the hearing of all the preliminary issues in the challenge by him and others to the recapitalisation should continue till all issues currently before the court are resolved.
He further informed the court that he has obtained, "under protest", a solicitor as act as technical legal representation for Scotchstone during the remainder of the proceedings, and will lodge an appeal after the preliminary hearing has concluded.
The court also heard that Mr Skoczylas will continue to argue points before the court in his capacity as an individual shareholder of IL&P.
Scotchstone, Mr Skocyzlas, two IL&P shareholders, Gerard Dowling and Padraig McManus and, in separate proceedings, an investment fund, Horizon Growth NV, are all challenging the recapitalisation on grounds including it unlawfully imposes an unacceptable €2.7bn burden on Irish and other EU taxpayers.
Mr Justice Feeney has been asked to determine a number of preliminary issues in the case.
Yesterday, in a separate issue the judge also struck out Mr Skoczylas' application to have the Minister's motion to dismiss the applications by Mr Skocyzlas and Scotchstone on grounds they were brought outside the time periods allowed.
He said that the Minister's motion was irrational, and argued that it "favoured form over substance".
However, the Judge agreed with lawyers for the Minister that the application to strike out the shareholders motion should be allowed proceed.
The hearing continues, and resumes on Friday when the court is expected to hear argument on the Minister's motion brought on seeking to have the the shareholders challenge struck out, on the grounds that it was brought outside the time periods allowed.