Court archive

By Aodhan O'Faolain The High Court

2015-03-06 · Kildare

First Personal Insolvency Arrangment approved by High Court: creditors to be paid 1cent in the Euro

The High Court approved a Personal Insolvency Arrangement for 71‑year‑old Tony McAuliffe, a retired businessman with €10 million in liabilities. Under the 2012 Personal Insolvency Act, the judge sanctioned a scheme that will pay creditors roughly one cent per euro owed. The arrangement was deemed approved because no creditors voted at a meeting held just before Christmas, giving the scheme automatic approval under Section 108. McAuliffe's creditors include Investec Bank, owed €8.56 million, and Kildare Credit Union, owed €163 000. His monthly pension of about €1,000 allows him to contribute €314 per month, totalling €103,700 over 12 months. A family loan of €100 000 is also available to pay creditors. The judge noted that the dividend under the PIA is higher than what creditors would receive if McAuliffe were declared bankrupt, and that bankruptcy costs are higher than the fixed costs of personal insolvency.

2015-02-06 · Ireland

Businessman's challenge against NAMA and IBRC set aside

The High Court has set aside a previous decision permitting judicial review proceedings brought by a Mayo property developer against the National Asset Management Agency, the Irish Banking Resolution Corporation, and other State parties. Thomas McEvaddy Snr and his company had sought declarations that certain sections of the 2009 NAMA Act were unconstitutional and incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The developer also challenged NAMA's authority to recover loans and alleged wrongdoing by Anglo Irish Bank, including improper placement of legal charges and an undrawn loan facility. Mr Justice Michael Peart concluded that some grounds were filed out of time whilst others lacked substantial factual foundation. The judge held that under the 2009 Act, no liability can attach to NAMA for alleged wrongs by participating institutions, and that claims regarding overcharging on interest could not proceed by judicial review. Claims against State respondents have been adjourned with liberty to re-enter.