Management Companies

01 What is a Management Company?

A so called "management company" is a company registered in the CRO usually as a Company limited by Guarantee (CLG) or a Designated Activity Company (DAC),  with an object clause to manage a multi-unit development. The "management company" owns the common areas of the development such as: car parks, green space, stairwells, lifts and communal hallways and maintains them for the benefit of all property owners and typically provides for insurance cover.

On acquiring a unit within the development, in addition to the apartment or house such person also shares ownership of the common areas. Stemming from this, it is usually a condition of the purchaser's contract that they sign a co-ownership agreement which obliged them to become a member of the management company.    These co-ownership agreements are essentially rooted in the laws of contract and private property,  rather than in any particular Act of the Oireachtas.  Following on from this, it should be clear that the requirement to become a member of a management company is not a requirement under company law. 

There is no special body of company law which applies only to so called "management companies" or is applied differently so far as management companies are concerned.  The "FAQ" (Frequently Asked Questions) section of this website answers most general company law type questions in relation to all companies.  Most of the issues arising in the so called "management companies" are not company law issues and the ODCE cannot assist.   The attached document lists the breaches of company law where ODCE can assist with.

02 Are management companies a product of company law?

No. It is important to stress that management companies have no special meaning and are in no way a requirement of company law. There is nothing in the Companies Act which states that a management company must be brought into existence in connection with any multi-unit development, and some multi-unit developments exist which do not have a management company associated with them. Furthermore, it is important to point out and emphasise that there is no special body of company law that applies solely to management companies.

03 Where can I find the legal source from which management companies operate?

Court Rulings

Theme picker

Feature

New Publication:

Single Guide for Companies 
Email info@odce.ie for a copy

Please visit FAQs before contacting the office

Covid-19 and AGMs

What's New

COVID-19 NOTICES
Temporary contact details
Insolvency related issues
Data Protection issues
Statement on the performance of our functions
Temporary amendments to Companies Act 2014
(extended to 30th April 2022)

The Director of Corporate Enforcement v Castle Elms Management Limited; Carmel Bolger; Enda Heneghan; Michael O’Flynn and Jerry Beades.

Monday

10 November 2014


Details of Defendants:
Defendant A: Castle Elms Management Limited, 23 Richmond Avenue, Fairview, Dublin 3;
Defendant B: Carmel Bolger, 6 Castle Elms, Coolock, Co. Dublin;
Defendant C: Enda Heneghan, App 9 Block A, Castle Elms, Greencastle Road, Coolock, Dublin 5;
Defendant D: Michael O’Flynn, Apt. 25 Castle Elms Court, Greencastle Road, Coolock, Dublin 5;
Defendant E: Jerry Beades, 50 Stoneyford Road, Lisburn, Co. Antrim, BT283SP, United Kingdom.
Venue:
Dublin Metropolitan District Court 
Judge:
District Judge O’Neill 
Alleged Offences:
All defendants were charged with three contraventions of Section 131(6) of the Companies Act 1963 (as amended), relating to the failure of Castle Elms Management Limited to hold an AGM in 2011 and 2012 AND failure to comply with a Direction of an Officer of the Director of Corporate Enforcement requiring an AGM be called. All defendants were also charged with a contravention of section 145(4) of the Companies Act 1963 (as amended) relating to the failure to comply with a requirement made by an Officer of the Director of Corporate Enforcement pursuant to section 145(3A) of said Act firstly to produce for inspection minute book(s) kept in accordance with Section 145(1) of said Act and secondly to facilitate inspection and copying of such minute book(s). In addition, Defendants A, B and E were charged with a further contravention of Section 131(6) of the Companies Act 1963 (as amended) relating to the failure of Castle Elms Management Limited to hold an AGM in 2010.
Outcome:
Defendant A: Castle Elms Management Limited.
On 28 July 2014, there being no appearance by or on behalf of Castle Elms Management Limited, the Court convicted the defendant on each of the five charges which were before the Court against the company, imposed fines totalling €9,000 and directed that the defendant pay €250 towards the costs of the prosecution. 
Defendant B: Carmel Bolger.
On 10 March 2014, on a plea of guilty, the Court convicted the defendant on a single charge pursuant to Section 131(6) of the Companies Act 1963 (as amended) and imposed a fine of €250. The Court proceeded [under section 1(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act 1907] to dismiss a further charge relating to contravention of section 131(6) of the Companies Act 1963 (as amended). The other three charges which were before the court against this defendant were struck out. 
Defendant C: Enda Heneghan.
On 2 July 2014, on a plea of guilty, the Court convicted the defendant on a single charge pursuant to Section 131(6) of the Companies Act 1963 (as amended), imposed a fine of €750 and directed the defendant to pay prosecution costs of €250. The Court proceeded [under section 1(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act 1907] to dismiss one charge relating to contravention of Section 131(6) of the Companies Act 1963 (as amended) and one in relation to contravention of section 145(4) of the Companies Act 1963 (as amended). The other charge which was before the court against this defendant was struck out. 
Defendant D: Michael O’Flynn.
On 2 July 2014, on a plea of guilty, the Court convicted the defendant on two charges pursuant to Section 131(6) of the Companies Act 1963 (as amended), imposed fines totalling €1,000 and directed the defendant to pay prosecution costs of €250. The other two charges which were before the court against this defendant were struck out. 
Defendant E: Jerry Beades.
On 10 November 2014, the five charges which were before the court against this defendant, and which were contested, were found to be proven. The Court convicted the defendant on each charge, imposed fines totalling €10,500 and directed that the defendant pay €250 towards the costs of the prosecution. The Court fixed recognisances in the event of an appeal. The Accused subsequently appealed to the Circuit Court.

Dublin Circuit Court Appeal 8 October 2015

Theme picker