The Court of Appeal has dismissed John Hoey’s appeal against an order postponing his discharge from bankruptcy until 28 February 2024. The court held that the extension, though significant, was within the range open to the High Court.
Hoey was adjudicated bankrupt on 29 February 2016 and would ordinarily have been discharged a year later. The Official Assignee sought an extension under section 85A of the Bankruptcy Act 1988, alleging failures to cooperate and disclose income or assets. In April 2020, the High Court ordered that Hoey’s bankruptcy would stand discharged on 28 February 2024. The Court of Appeal noted that this was a seven-year extension to the bankruptcy period, although the date was described during proceedings as an eight-year extension because it marked the eighth anniversary of the adjudication.
The High Court application relied on four grounds: farm machinery and vehicles moved from the family farm to storage at a local hotel; €12,000 found on Hoey’s property; alleged concealment of money paid by meat processor Kepak; and the absence of a proper statement of affairs. The High Court judge said the affidavits contained conflicts she could not resolve, and relied on matters that were not in dispute, taking the view more favourable to Hoey where accounts conflicted.
The judge found, on the balance of probabilities, that significant cash assets had been hidden on Hoey’s property and not disclosed to the Official Assignee. She also considered the handling of Kepak payments, the movement of assets from the Anna Croft property and the continuing failure to file a proper statement of affairs. The judgment records that a Kepak cheque for €57,539.85 was dated 16 February 2016, before the bankruptcy adjudication, and that five later cheques were endorsed to third-party organisations. The Official Assignee’s solicitor later said €45,539.85 remained missing; that was a statement in correspondence, not a separate Court of Appeal finding.
During the appeal, the court allowed Hoey another opportunity to cooperate by providing a complete and accurate statement of affairs. The additional documents he supplied appeared to relate to his current assets and liabilities rather than those at the date of adjudication. The Official Assignee’s solicitors identified further omissions, including the alleged hidden cash and Kepak money, the Anna Croft property and sums Hoey said he had received from friends and family. The Court of Appeal concluded that matters had not materially moved on since the High Court judgment.
The appeal was dismissed. The court’s provisional view was that Hoey should pay the appeal costs. Either party could make submissions on costs within 10 days or seek a short oral hearing.