High Court orders model and TV3 star Glenda Gilson be 'restricted' in her involvement in any company for five years
Published 30/07/2015 | 18:19
MODEL and TV presenter Glenda Gilson is to be restricted in her involvement in any company for five years under a High Court order.
Her bother Damien is to be disqualified from acting as a director of any company for the same period.
The orders arise out of the siblings' involvement as directors of a failed company which traded in high value motor vehicles.
Gary Lennon, who was appointed liquidator of Gilson Motor Company Ltd, Sir John Rogerson's Quay, Dublin, sought the orders.
Arising out of the liquidation, Mr Lennon applied to the court, under the 1990 Companies Act, seeking to have Damien Gilson disqualified from acting as a company director for a period of five years.
He also sought an order restricting Ms Gilson from acting as a company director for five years unless certain capital requirements for the company are met.
Among the reasons for seeking the orders were that no proper books and records were kept by the company.
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, the liquidator said.
Ms Gilson opposed the application, on grounds including that she had "no hand, act or part" in the running of the business and gained no personal benefit from it.
Her brother did not contest the application.
Mr Justice Paul Gilligan made an order disqualifying Damien Gilson from acting as a company director.
He said it was accepted Ms Gilson "played no active role," "did not act dishonestly," and was "deceived by her brother in the improper way he ran the affairs of the business".
She "probably never saw the writing on the wall for the company for the simple reason she did not involve herself in any way in the affairs of the company", he said.
It was difficult to attach any real moral blame to Ms Gilson, he said.
However, he found she had displayed "a want of proper standards" in effectively not taking any interest in the affairs of the company of which she was a director.
She had not kept herself informed of the company's affairs.
There was no other reason why it would be just and equitable for her to be subject to the restrictions applied for by the liquidator, he said.