The Court of Appeal has dismissed Patrick McLaughlin’s appeal against the refusal to set aside a bankruptcy summons and the High Court order adjudicating him bankrupt. It affirmed both orders, leaving the bankruptcy adjudication in place. The appeal was limited to those matters; the High Court’s separate orders substituting Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC for Ennis Property Finance DAC and allowing execution were not appealed.
The dispute arose from loans made to Mr McLaughlin and his wife in 2008. A High Court judgment against them was upheld by the Supreme Court. Ennis later sought bankruptcy proceedings against Mr McLaughlin for a claimed balance of €2,006,898.01 after crediting net proceeds from two property sales against the judgment debt.
Mr McLaughlin disputed the balance and raised concerns about the property sales and receivership. Ennis’s evidence gave a net total of €2,057,240 from the two sales. The Court of Appeal noted that Mr McLaughlin did not respond to the detailed breakdown of sale receipts, costs and other credits filed by Ennis’s director.
In December 2019, Mr McLaughlin applied for a protective certificate under the Personal Insolvency Act 2012. His prescribed financial statement and statutory declaration recorded a debt to Ennis of €2,006,898. The Circuit Court granted the certificate on the stated understanding that the plenary proceedings and the application to dismiss the bankruptcy proceedings would be withdrawn. The certificate led to an adjournment of the bankruptcy proceedings while a proposed personal insolvency arrangement was considered. Creditors did not approve the proposal, and the process ended.
The appeal argued that the High Court should not have relied on the certificate and related documents as an acknowledgment of the debt. The Court of Appeal rejected that argument. It held that the High Court was entitled to consider the certificate and the financial statement on which it was based. It also found that Mr McLaughlin had relied on the certificate to obtain an adjournment, and could not then argue that its contents could not be relied on against him.
The court said the earlier judgment and the evidence explaining the credits provided an additional basis for the High Court’s decision. It found no issue requiring a trial on the amount claimed in the bankruptcy summons. The Court of Appeal also proposed that Pepper receive its costs of the appeal. Mr McLaughlin was given 14 days from delivery of the electronic judgment to tell the Court of Appeal Office if he wished to dispute that proposed costs order; the source does not record a final costs order.