The High Court has ordered that Kenneth Joyce’s bankruptcy will stand discharged on 23 May 2026, extending the period after finding serious failures to cooperate with the Official Assignee over assets that might benefit creditors.
Mr Justice Mark Sanfey made the order under section 85A(4) of the Bankruptcy Act 1988, as amended. Joyce was adjudicated bankrupt on 23 November 2021. The Official Assignee had sought an extension, alleging that Joyce had failed to cooperate in realising assets or disclose information about assets that could be realised for creditors.
The court focused on Joyce’s account of his interest in a property in Koh Samui, Thailand, and on belongings he said were removed from his former home. The Official Assignee relied on company records that listed Joyce as the sole director of Ka-Nit Limited, which owns the Thai property, and on records concerning shares transferred to a British Virgin Islands company. The Official Assignee argued that the information raised questions about Joyce’s continuing interest or control.
Joyce said he had disposed of his interest for €10,000 in 2020 and had no relevant paperwork. The judge found his accounts contradictory and said the available information appeared inconsistent with his account. He concluded that Joyce’s cooperation about the property had been “unacceptable” and that the Official Assignee had been left to investigate matters Joyce should have helped clarify.
Joyce also gave changing valuations for belongings he said he was prevented from removing from his former home, including a schedule valuing them at €141,890. The judge said the figures were unsupported and contradictory. The judgment records that the Official Assignee produced letters from the County Sheriff stating that the sheriff had seized nothing against the debt, and from the landlord’s solicitors stating Joyce had attended the property to remove items. Joyce disputed that account.
The judge also noted that Joyce had not responded to a request for information about any possible inheritance from his late father’s estate. He said Joyce would have to answer the query. The judgment explains that such property does not automatically vest in the Official Assignee: it must be claimed under the Act.
The court did not consider the removal of creditors from Joyce’s statement of affairs or his failure to resign as a company director as grounds for an extension under section 85A(4), because those matters did not meet that provision’s asset-related criteria. The judge said other statutory provisions may address those issues.
Although the judge regarded the non-cooperation and lack of disclosure as serious, he did not place them towards the upper end of the statutory range. He ordered discharge on 23 May 2026. Joyce’s separate motion, which he did not press at the hearing, was dismissed. The court proposed awarding the Official Assignee costs of the extension application and making no costs order on Joyce’s motion, while allowing written submissions on costs within seven days.