The High Court has been asked for a declaration that a minority shareholder in Conroy Gold and Natural Resources and two of his nominees be appointed as directors of the gold mining company forthwith.
The demand has been made by Patrick O'Sullivan, of Howth Road, Dublin, who bought shares in the company eight years ago and now holds a 28% stake, although he has never been a director.
Mr Jim O'Callaghan SC told Mr Justice Max Barrett that his client Mr O'Sullivan had presented nine resolutions to an extraordinary general meeting last month at which six directors were removed from the Board.
He said Mr O'Sullivan in three other resolutions had proposed their replacement on the Board by himself and two others, Paul Johnson and Gervaise Heddle.
Mr O'Callaghan told the court that company chairman Richard Conroy had put the nine resolutions in their entirety to a vote.
Following the removal of six of the directors it was Mr O'Sullivan's case that the chairman, Mr Conroy, had declared the resolutions nominating himself and his two nominees to the Board as invalid and abruptly called an end to the EGM.
Mr O'Callaghan said Mr O'Sullivan had averred in sworn statements to the court that a poll had been taken and a clear majority of members had voted to appoint himself, Mr Johnson and Mr Heddle to the Board of the company.
It was Mr O'Sullivan's contention that the resolutions proposing his and his two nominees elevation to the Board had been declared invalid for want of compliance with the notice requirements of the company's Articles of Association.
Mr O'Callaghan said Mr O'Sullivan claimed that the necessary requirements of the constitution of the company had been complied.
He further claimed that Mr Conroy was not entitled to deem the resolutions invalid and alleged the chairman had conducted the meeting in a fashion oppressive to Mr O'Sullivan's interests.
Mr Brian O'Moore SC, who appeared with barrister John Lavell and solicitors William Fry for Conroy Gold, told Judge Barrett that the company considered the appointments to be invalid in that no prior notification had been provided.
Mr O'Moore and Mr O'Callaghan agreed that the net issue before the court was whether or not a vote to appoint the new directors was validly taken in accordance with the company's articles of association.
The court was being asked if the company was lawfully entitled to declare the three resolutions appointing the three new directors invalid after they had been voted on by the members.
Mr O'Callaghan said two new directors had been appointed to the company by what Mr O'Sullivan was contending was an improperly appointed Board.
The case continues at hearing.