Court makes orders against Glenda Gilson over car firm

Judge says 10-year disqualification order is merited in brother Damien Gilson’s case

The court accepted Glenda 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”. Photograph: Collins Courts
The court accepted Glenda 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”. Photograph: Collins Courts

The High Court has imposed a conditional restriction order of five years’ duration against TV presenter Glenda Gilson and a disqualification order of eight years against her brother Damien under the Companies Acts arising from their involvement with a motor car company.

The terms were imposed by Mr Justice Paul Gilligan yesterday, who last July agreed with the company liquidator that certain restriction orders should be imposed on the siblings.

Gary Lennon, who was appointed liquidator of Gilson Motor Company Ltd which traded in high-value vehicles and operated a parking and valeting service at Sir John Rogerson’s Quay, Dublin, sought orders under section 160 of the 1990 Companies Act seeking to have Damien Gilson disqualified from acting as a company director.

He also sought an order seeking to have certain restrictions imposed on Ms Gilson preventing her from acting as a company director unless certain capital requirements were met. As a result of the order, she cannot become a company director unless it has a paid-up share capital of at least €63,000.

READ MORE

She opposed the liquidator’s application on grounds including she had “no hand, act or part” in the running of the business, which she gained no personal benefit from. Her brother did not contest the application.

Mr Justice Gilligan said a 10-year disqualification order was merited in Damien Gilson’s case, but reduced that to eight years on the grounds Mr Gilson had not contested the application and had taken full responsibility for his actions.

He said the court 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”.

Ms Gilson did not involve herself in any way in the affairs of the company. “It was difficult to attach any real moral blame to her. Her brother had accepted full responsibility, and she had “acted honestly”, he said.

However, the court 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.