The High Court extended John Gaynor’s bankruptcy by five years after finding that he had failed to cooperate with the Official Assignee and disclose assets. The extension runs from the date he would otherwise have been automatically discharged from bankruptcy.
In a judgment delivered on 23 January 2017, Ms Justice Costello ruled on an application under section 85A of the Bankruptcy Act 1988. The Official Assignee had sought an extension, alleging that Mr Gaynor had not cooperated in realising assets and had failed to disclose income or assets for creditors. The court had earlier ordered that the bankruptcy would not be discharged while the application was pending.
The evidence before the court was that Mr Gaynor had not filed a statement of affairs or supplied personal information requested by the Official Assignee, and had not attended an interview about his assets. The Official Assignee also said he had been told that Mr Gaynor held land in County Westmeath and had livestock, farm machinery and motor vehicles. Their value and any charges against them were unknown. The Official Assignee further reported that €46,567.41 had been withdrawn from Mr Gaynor’s bank account in the days after his adjudication and remained unaccounted for.
Justice Costello said the Official Assignee’s evidence was uncontroverted and established a total failure to cooperate and a failure to disclose assets. She described the unexplained withdrawal as a matter of particular concern. The court had limited evidence about the extent of creditor prejudice, but said the possibility of further prejudice from undisclosed assets remained.
Mr Gaynor raised several challenges to the bankruptcy and the application, including objections to the Official Assignee’s authority and submissions that the original adjudication was invalid or unfair. The judge said those points did not determine the application before her and that she was bound by the existing adjudication order, which had not been set aside. Earlier challenges to the adjudication had been dismissed. The court’s decision on this application was to extend the bankruptcy period; it did not determine the value of the reported assets or the full extent of any creditor losses.
The five-year extension was imposed under section 85A, which allows a court to postpone discharge where a bankrupt has failed to cooperate or disclose assets. The judgment said the conduct hindered recovery for creditors and undermined the integrity of the bankruptcy process.