The Court of Appeal dismissed K.J.’s appeal against an order extending his bankruptcy and moved his discharge date to 23 November 2027. It granted the Official Assignee a further 18 months beyond the date set by the High Court, but declined the Assignee’s request for an extension of up to 15 years.
K.J. was adjudicated bankrupt on 22 November 2021. Under the usual rule, he would have been discharged after one year. In November 2022, the Official Assignee applied under section 85A of the Bankruptcy Act 1988 to prevent discharge and extend the period, alleging failures to cooperate in realising assets and disclose income or assets. The High Court ordered that K.J.’s bankruptcy stand discharged on 23 May 2026, finding his non-cooperation and lack of disclosure serious.
The appeal, decided by the Court of Appeal on 25 April 2024, focused chiefly on a property in Thailand and K.J.’s changing accounts of his interest in it. The judgment records that he had variously described a one-eighth share, a sale for €10,000 with a timeshare arrangement, and a transfer of shares in the Thai company Ka-Nit to a British Virgin Islands company, Ming Hin. At the appeal hearing, he said for the first time that Ming Hin held the interest on trust for his children; he provided no supporting documentation to the court. He also said he had documentation from Trident, the company managing the BVI entity, which he had not opened or considered.
The court said the property’s true ownership remained unclear and that it was not deciding that question. It was deciding whether K.J. had failed to cooperate or properly disclose assets to the Official Assignee. The judges agreed with the High Court that he had done so, noting that the Assignee’s own inquiries had uncovered key information and that K.J.’s account had changed as information emerged. K.J. said he had not intended to provide improper information and attributed difficulties to his lack of legal representation.
The Assignee’s cross-appeal sought a further extension, including under a provision allowing up to 15 years in serious cases. The Court of Appeal found the additional matters related to the same Thai property issue and did not justify that longer maximum. It instead ordered a further 18-month extension under the provision allowing an extension up to the eighth anniversary of adjudication. The court also recorded K.J.’s undertaking to provide the Assignee with the documentation in his possession and ongoing information about his late parent’s estate.
On costs, the court’s provisional view was that the Assignee should receive the costs of the appeal and 80% of the costs of the cross-appeal, with the costs to be paid from the bankruptcy estate. K.J. was given 14 days to file written submissions opposing the proposed costs order; the Assignee could reply within 14 days after that.