Court reserves judgment on Taylor affidavits

The High Court has reserved judgment on the issue of whether affidavits by Tony Taylor, the founder of collapsed finance company Taylor Asset Management, may be used in proceedings brought by the liquidator of the Taylor companies against other directors of the company, who include the TV presenter Eddie Hobbs.

Mr Taylor has made a number of allegations in his affidavits against other directors but those allegations have not been detailed in court and the issue of how the affidavits may be used has yet to be decided.

Ms Justice Mary Finlay Geoghegan said she hoped to give that decision within two weeks.

Liquidator Paddy McSwiney has said he does not propose to rely on Mr Taylor's affidavits for his proceedings against the other directors, brought under Section 150 of the Companies Act. However, Mr McSwiney said he does intend to rely on the Taylor affidavits for his proceedings against Mr Taylor himself.

Counsel for Mr McSwiney, who is obliged under the Companies Act to bring proceedings against the directors of Taylor Asset Management, has previously told the court that there is no evidence that the other four directors, Eddie Hobbs, Tom Carroll, Tom Lynch, and Shirley Taylor, had acted other than honestly and responsibly.

All the parties are separately represented in the proceedings.

At yesterday's hearing, Brian Kennedy, for Mr Hobbs, said the liquidator was correct in deciding not to use Mr Taylor's affidavits in the proceedings against his client. The contents of the affidavits were a "rehash" of allegations that had previously been made against Mr Hobbs, counsel said.

The liquidator, who is an officer of the court and who had exercised his functions in a proper manner, had stated that according to his evidence the TV presenter had acted "honestly and properly" in relation to the business affairs of the company, Mr Kennedy said. Mr Taylor, counsel added, had been found guilty of fraud and destroying documents.

However, counsel for Mr Taylor argued that the affidavits should be put before the court. To ignore the affidavits would mean the court was hearing only "part of the background of the history of the company" and it would "close off" evidence from the person "best placed to know how the affairs of the company were conducted", Mr Taylor.

Mr Taylor, whose companies collapsed in 1996 with some millions of pounds in clients' funds missing, is not contesting the restrictions against him, the court was earlier told.

It also previously heard that Mr Taylor was "greatly surprised" that the liquidator was not putting forward his affidavits in relation to the proceedings against the other directors.

Mr Taylor, the court was told, had put certain matters before the court relating to culpability of other directors.

Mr Taylor was convicted of fraud in 2001 after he was located in England following his earlier absconscion when the group collapsed.

Mr McSwiney initiated the Section 150 proceedings last July following the conclusion of criminal proceedings against Mr Taylor.

The liquidator is obliged to move such an application, which is procedural, even if he believes some directors acted fairly and honestly.