Ireland’s Longest Director Ban: A Warning to Business Owners

In January 2026, the High Court of Ireland delivered a landmark “record-setting” ruling on director misconduct.

Wex­ford busi­ness­man Alan Hynes was dis­qual­i­fied from act­ing as a com­pany dir­ector for 18 years, in what is believed to the longest ever dis­qual­i­fic­a­tion order ever under section 842, citing fraudulent trading, failure to keep proper books and records, misfeasance, acting while disqualified/restricted, and prolonged obstruction of the liquidation. No mitigating factors were applied.

The Court declared that Alan Hynes personally liable without limitation for total debts of €3,262,520.10 linked to a group of companies operating a Wexford Jewellery shop and for record‑reconstruction costs of €47,851.12, applying section 610 in light of egregious misconduct. The other company directors also received lesser but still significant disqualification orders and were also held personally liable. The Court determined that Alan Hynes was the primary catalyst of the problematic behavior in the companies.

The court’s record ruling shows the importance in Ireland of maintaining proper corporate governance and financial accountability, especially in sectors as reliant on trust as that of retail and consumer goods. Hynes’s case serves as a clear signal for business directors, and shows the serious repercussions of mismanagement and financial irresponsibility.

The proceedings arose from the winding up of three related companies—Hynes Jewellers (Wexford) Limited, JW Fashions Limited, and Tuskar Property Holdings Limited—and allegations of fraudulent and reckless trading, breaches of statutory duties (including failure to keep proper books and records), misfeasance, and non‑cooperation with the liquidator. The liquidator showed the court that company funds were being intermingled with personal funds and diverted out of the company so as to bring them beyond the reach of creditors, records were deficient, and the companies traded while insolvent to the detriment of creditors, including the Revenue Commissioners.

While Alan Hynes was not a director per the CRO records, the Court found that he was a de facto/shadow director who influenced and controlled affairs despite being subject to earlier disqualification and restriction orders. The Court also found systemic failures in record‑keeping and deliberate obstruction of the liquidator’s work.

This ruling demonstrates how the Companies Act 2014 can be deployed to impose both consequences on directors and de facto controllers who ignore statutory duties and basic principles of corporate governance.

The record 18 year disqualification order was made as a result of the very many breaches of director’s duties all added together. Some important takeaways are as follows:

1. The court meaningfully applied the De facto/shadow directorship concept. The Court treated control and influence as determinative, not just titles on the CRO register. In other words, if you act like a director, you will be treated as one for liability and disqualification.
2. Poor record‑keeping leads to directors being personally exposed. Breaches of sections 281–285 can ground declarations of personal liability, particularly where records are absent or falsified and the liquidator is obstructed. The Court also emphasised that egregious non‑compliance can justify making a director liable for all company debts via section 610.
3. Trading while insolvent is very problematic. Continuing to trade while insolvent, diverting funds, and confusing company identities in transactions were central to the findings of fraudulent/reckless trading and the resulting personal liabilities and bans. The directors incorporated multiple companies in an attempt to move assets beyond the reach of creditors and to allow them to continue to trade. For example, the multiple companies allowed the directors to take out multiple hire-purchase agreements for cars that they were unable to pay. The court was able to infer fraudulent intent from the incorporation multiple companies.
4. The directors did not co-operate with the court process and the court multiplied the sanction as a result. Failure to deliver a statement of affairs, refusal to produce documents, and disregard of Court orders aggravated outcomes and supported longer disqualification periods. The directors consistently frustrated proceedings, causing delay, and did not engage with the court process.
5. Acting while already disqualified/restricted is a compounding breach. Alan Hynes had already been disqualified before his involvement in the Jewellers and was not allowed to act as a director in the Jewellers (this would be a significant reason behind him never registering as a director in the CRO). The Court highlighted that Alan Hynes’s clear breach of prior orders as aggravating, reinforcing the protective and deterrent purposes of disqualification.

The conclusion from this judgement is clear. The law in Ireland requires that directors (i) insist on statutory compliance, (ii) maintain clear financial records, (iii) act promptly when potential insolvency concerns arise, and (iv) cooperate fully with insolvency officials. If directors don’t meet these requirements in the management of their companies then, in certain circumstances, the directors may face personal liability and long‑term exclusion from corporate life.