Empty Link Skip to Content

Expertise

Niamh Counihan is Matheson's Pro Bono Partner and Director of Legal and Regulatory Affairs, dividing her time equally between her two roles.

In her role as the firm’s first Pro Bono Partner, Niamh is responsible for working with management to refine Matheson’s pro bono strategy and for leading the pro bono initiatives and collaborative projects that engage our lawyers and our clients in supporting the communities in which we work and live. 

As a partner and Director Legal and Regulatory Affairs within Matheson's Risk Management Team since 2016, Niamh works closely with a team of multi-disciplinary specialists to provide legal and regulatory advice to the firm.  She advises Matheson on all aspects of risk management, compliance and  professional standards. 

Prior to be being appointed Director of Legal and Regulatory Affairs, Niamh was a partner in Matheson's Corporate Restructuring and Insolvency Group within the Commercial Litigation and Dispute Resolution Department.  Niamh has extensive knowledge and experience of contentious and non-contentious corporate restructuring and insolvency law matters and commercial litigation.  She is experienced in advising and resolving complex and contentious disputes. 

Niamh is a member of the Pro Bono Pledge Steering Group which supports Public Interest Law Alliance in growing and developing Pro Bono Pledge Ireland and provides strategic direction to the operation and development of the Pledge.  She has been a member of the Business Law Committee of the Law Society of Ireland since 2015 and lectures with the Law Society of Ireland.  

Experience Highlights

Niamh’s experience includes advising:

    • on professional standards and compliance with the regulations applicable to solicitors
    • on confidentiality, data privacy and information security
    • on the contractual terms of the contracts which the firm enters into
    • on anti-money laundering and compliance
    • companies, shareholders, directors, financial institutions, creditor groups, liquidators, receivers and examiners
    • in relation to mitigating insolvency risk in the context of commercial transactions
    • on high profile cross-border insolvency and restructuring matters and Commercial Court disputes
    Accolades

    Niamh has previously been recognised in Women in Business Law, European Legal 500, Chambers Global and Europe, and IFLR1000. 

    Education

    University College Dublin (Diploma in Arbitration)

    University College Cork (BCL)

    Court of Appeal Clarifies Premise of Examinership

    Aug 13, 2020, 22:53 PM
    The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal by the Edward Holdings group of companies against a decision of O’Connor J in the High Court refusing to appoint an examiner to four of the seven group companies in respect of which an examiner was sought to be appointed.
    Title : Court of Appeal Clarifies Premise of Examinership
    Filter services i ds : 18be7629-c807-4e2c-b999-08d523a905e9;
    Engagement Time : 4
    Insight Type : Article
    Insight Date : Oct 6, 2017, 00:00 AM
    The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal by the Edward Holdings group of companies against a decision of O’Connor J in the High Court refusing to appoint an examiner to four of the seven group companies in respect of which an examiner was sought to be appointed.  

    The group, which is controlled by Gerry Barrett, owns, amongst other assets, the Meyrick and G hotels in Galway.

    The Court of Appeal rejected all of the findings which underpinned the decision of the High Court to refuse to appoint the examiner, including non-disclosure and abuse of process findings.  The central issue for consideration by the Court of Appeal was the argument by the secured creditor that a settlement agreement between the group and the secured creditor in January 2017, being inconsistent with the concept of group companies seeking to have an examiner appointed to the relevant companies, should cause the court to exercise its discretion to refuse the application to appoint the examiner.

    Finlay Geoghegan J and Hogan J, in separate judgments, with which Peart J agreed, both concluded that the existence of the settlement agreement was not a sufficient basis upon which to exercise their discretion to refuse the application.  Hogan J explained the position as follows.

    “The fact … that an application for examinership would be inconsistent with the performance of the obligations imposed on a company under the terms of a settlement agreement cannot in itself - and I stress these words - be a dispositive consideration for a court determining whether to appoint an examiner … precisely because the entire examinership system is premised on the assumption that pre-existing commercial contracts (of whatever kind) will be overridden, varied, negated and dishonoured in the wider public interest of rescuing an otherwise potentially viable company”.

    This constitutes a useful clarification of this issue in light in particular of a recent decision of the High Court which suggested otherwise  (Re JJ Red Holdings Ltd), with which Hogan J expressly disagreed.

    HoldingImage_558x245_Blue HoldingImage_450x200_Red
    Co Authors
    Related Insights