The owner of Business & Finance magazine and three directors of the company that formerly published the magazine do not bear any responsibility for the collapse of the company in 2002, a High Court judge has ruled.

All four acted responsibly at all times in relation to the affairs of the company, Mr Justice Michael Hanna found.

On that basis, and having stressed no allegation of dishonesty had been made against any of the respondents, the judge refused to make restriction orders under section 150 of the Companies Act against Ian Hyland, owner of the magazine, and three former directors - William Ambrose, Michael Norris and Lisa Cosgrave.

The judge ruled the financial collapse of the company had nothing to do with the actions of its directors but instead was a result of three external factors in 2001. They were the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, the collapse of dotcom stocks and the September 11th attacks on New York.

There was nothing to show that the respondents had acted other than out of a genuine belief that they could turn the company around and he was satisfied there was no just or equitable reason to restrict them, the judge said.

The proceedings arose after Mr Hyland's acquisition on January 15th, 2002, of the publishing company, Belanos Publications, and its later voluntary liquidation in March 2002 with a Revenue debt of some €675,000. Mr Hyland, who also publishes Magill magazine, transferred the Business & Finance title after the liquidation to another company, which continues to publish it.

The Director of Corporate Enforcement had refused to grant company liquidator Pearse Farrell relief from his obligation under the Companies Acts to seek restriction orders against the directors in light of the liquidation.

At an earlier hearing, the late Mr Justice Seán O'Leary refused to restrict three other former directors - former Fianna Fáil minister Martin O'Donoghue, former managing editor John Magee and former editor Vincent Wall. Counsel for the liquidator had said all three acted honestly and responsibly.

Ruling on the situation of Mr Hyland and the other former directors, Mr Justice Hanna said there were factual conflicts between the parties. He had been asked to resolve them. However, there had been no cross-examination of the respondents and he did not believe resolution of the conflicts was necessary.