Tinnelly bosses ruled as unfit to run a firm for eight years
Page 7
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
By Alan Erwin THE DIRECTORS of failed business Tinnelly International Transport are unit to run a company for the next eight years, the High Court in Belfast has ruled.
Disqualiication orders were imposed against Kevin Martin Tinnelly and Catherina Rose Tinnelly after they were held to have shown “a lack of probity” in failing to pay a £60,000 insurance settlement. Tinnelly International claimed for the loss of goods belonging to Clearway Disposals when a cargo ship ran aground in January 2008.
Insurers made a payment of nearly £76,000, which included a sum of just over £60,000 due to Clearway to settle the case.
The court heard Tinnelly International failed to pass over the sum due for the loss sustained.
Delivering her judgment, Master Fiona Kelly said: “The company has never accounted for this failure or for what happened to the monies.”
It was also established that their company Tinnelly International Transport, which is now in administration, owed more than £560,000 in tax and national insurance, had not submitted a statement of af
fairs, and failed to ile annual accounts for the year to 31 July 2007. Kelly pointed out that three other irms that listed Kevin Tinnelly as a director have undergone insolvency procedures with liabilities ranging from £1.1m to £2.9m.
A further three companies breached statutory obligations over the iling of accounts. She said: “I am satisied that this is a serious case in which the respondents have demonstrated a lack of probity, particularly with regard to the issue of failing to pay insurance monies properly due to a third party. In my view the respondents are not it to be concerned in the management of a company and that a substantial period of disqualiication is appropriate.” Seeking disqualiication orders against Kevin and Catherina Tinnelly, the company’s only directors, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment claimed both were unit for the role.
Neither respondent defended the allegations or participated in the proceedings. The Department was awarded its legal costs against the Tinnellys.