The High Court refused C. M.’s application to dismiss a bankruptcy summons brought by ACC Loan Management Ltd, finding that he had not established a basis for setting it aside.
The application was made under section 8 of the Bankruptcy Act 1988. The court said a summons must be dismissed if a debtor raises a real and substantial issue that is at least arguable and has some prospect of success. A mere assertion of a defence is not enough.
The creditor’s demand, issued in April 2014, sought €1,381,024 on foot of a 2010 consent judgment for €1.9 million. It said credits from security recoveries reduced the principal by €818,976, and capped the interest claimed at €300,000. The debtor disputed the figures, focusing on rent from a property on Main Street. He believed the spreadsheet’s date beside the rent credit meant rent had only been counted up to that date, leaving further rent uncredited.
The judge found the spreadsheet date showed when the credit was applied, not when the rent was collected. The debtor accepted that rent actually recovered had been credited. The court also found the demand was not misleading and rejected his technical objections concerning the creditor’s name and the summons wording.
The debtor also argued that the creditor’s refusal to discuss settlement had harmed his efforts to settle debts. The court found no supporting evidence that he could have made an acceptable offer. In separate 2013 proceedings, he had raised complaints about receivers’ handling of secured properties, including alleged failures to obtain rent and sales at an undervalue. The judge said those claims could be pursued against the receivers, but the application required an issue between the debtor and the judgment creditor that could support damages set off against the debt. The court found no such issue. It rejected the argument that the receivers were agents of the creditor, citing the mortgage term making them the debtor’s agents and solely responsible for their acts.
Other claims involving tenants, auctioneers and the amount recovered in a settlement with solicitors were also found insufficient to raise an issue for trial between the debtor and creditor. The court refused the application to dismiss the bankruptcy summons. The judgment determined only that application; it did not make a bankruptcy order.