The High Court adjudicated Gerard Carew bankrupt on 1 November 2021 after finding that the statutory requirements for the petition had been met and there was no appropriate alternative to bankruptcy. The court later set out its reasons in writing in a judgment delivered on 10 December 2021.
Beacon Capital Limited and Robert Baker petitioned over an unpaid liability arising from Carew’s personal guarantee for money advanced to Oakwood Foods (Ireland) Ltd. The judgment says €70,000 was advanced in April 2017. In July 2019, the High Court gave the creditors judgment for €90,000 in related proceedings.
Carew did not pay following service of a bankruptcy summons in November 2020. In a financial statement prepared for a personal insolvency application in June 2021, he acknowledged owing the petitioners €130,784, comprising the judgment debt and €40,784 in interest. A Circuit Court judge granted a protective certificate on 18 June 2021 that listed the same debt.
The bankruptcy petition was adjourned several times while the personal insolvency process and proposed payment arrangements were raised. By the October hearing, the creditors submitted that the protective certificate had expired without a proposal. Carew sought another short adjournment to make a proposal. The High Court granted it, setting a deadline for evidence, but the affidavit Carew later filed was outside the court’s timetable.
At the November hearing, Carew sought a further week to reply to the creditors’ latest affidavit, take instructions and update the court. His counsel had no instructions when asked what defence Carew had to the petition. The judge said the creditors’ affidavit was largely comment on material already before the court and did not materially influence the decision. The central issue remained the unsatisfied debt, and no legally viable defence had been identified after months of proceedings.
The court was satisfied that section 11 of the Bankruptcy Act 1988 had been complied with and considered the matters under section 14. It concluded that bankruptcy was appropriate because Carew had already gone through the personal insolvency process. The judge also said creditors could rely on a greater debt if it was proved, including the interest Carew had acknowledged. At the hearing, offers and intentions to pay were not enough: the debt had not actually been paid.
The written judgment notes that Carew had appealed the adjudication to the Court of Appeal but had not applied to the High Court to show cause against it under section 16(1). The judge left it to the Court of Appeal to clarify whether such an application should first be made to the trial court. The judgment does not determine that appeal.