The High Court has refused to annul Paul O’Shea’s bankruptcy adjudication, finding that the bank’s petition met the statutory requirements and that it would not be just and equitable to set the adjudication aside.
In a judgment delivered on 19 December 2016, Ms Justice Costello considered an application under section 16 of the Bankruptcy Act 1988. O’Shea was adjudicated bankrupt on 4 July 2016. He said the order was served on him on 13 October, and applied to show cause on 18 October. The application was technically out of time, but the judge extended the time and accepted it.
The judge had previously ruled that a bankruptcy summons was validly served through substituted service at Shelton Abbey Prison on 22 October 2015, when O’Shea was detained there. Costello said a show-cause application was not an appeal from matters already decided at the adjudication hearing, and O’Shea could not reargue that service issue.
O’Shea also challenged whether Danske Bank A/S was his creditor, pointing to account statements and uncertainty he alleged about whether his loans had transferred from National Irish Bank. The judge said a 2013 High Court judgment in favour of Danske Bank A/S, then trading as National Irish Bank, remained valid: no stay had been granted and an appeal had not been pursued. The court therefore had to recognise the bank as a creditor and could not revisit the evidence underlying that judgment.
The judge rejected other arguments, including that the petition was improperly signed and that it had not adequately stated the debt remained unpaid. She found the petition had been signed in accordance with Danish law and the bank’s articles, and that it complied with the relevant court rules. She also rejected the claim that the petition was brought for an improper collateral purpose, finding the bank was pursuing recovery of the judgment debt.
The judgment recorded that the bank held security valued at €1.2 million against a debt of €1,487,016.15. Costello found the debt exceeded €20,000, was a liquidated sum, and arose from an act of bankruptcy within the statutory period.
The court was therefore required to consider whether annulment would be just and equitable. It found it would not, and dismissed the application to show cause. Costello also said complaints about the conduct of the July hearing and her reasons for the adjudication were matters for appeal, not this application.