The High Court discharged a stay on Carlow County Council’s Circuit Court proceedings seeking transfer of a road and bridge, ruling that the claim was not a creditor proceeding over a debt covered by bankruptcy law.
In a judgment delivered on 19 May 2021, Mr Justice Humphreys said the council’s case sought declaratory relief and specific performance to determine an interest in land. It therefore fell outside section 136 of the Bankruptcy Act 1988, which restricts creditors from pursuing certain remedies against a bankrupt without the court’s leave.
The ruling did not decide whether the council was entitled to the transfer. It removed the stay so the council could progress its equitable proceedings in the Circuit Court.
The dispute arose from a May 2005 agreement between the council and Samuel Snoddy. Under the agreement, Mr Snoddy was to transfer a road and bridge to the council after a construction project was completed. The project was completed in 2007 and consideration was furnished to him. The judgment says he then held legal, but not equitable, title and declined to execute the transfer, claiming more money was owed.
Mr Snoddy’s commercial proceedings were struck out in 2012. Separately, David Mavroudis obtained judgment for a liquidated sum against him in 2013 and registered a judgment mortgage against the lands on which the road and bridge had been built. Mr Snoddy was adjudicated bankrupt in February 2017.
The council later brought an Equity Civil Bill in the Circuit Court seeking specific performance of the agreement. Mr Mavroudis sought a stay of those proceedings, which the High Court granted on 22 February 2021. The council applied to have it discharged, and the court granted that application on 19 April.
Mr Mavroudis also argued, in effect, that further rights of Mr Snoddy—including an alleged entitlement to additional construction costs—should be considered. The judge said the assertion of any such rights belonged to the Official Assignee unless the court directed otherwise. No directions had been given by the hearing of the stay application, and the judge found no sufficiently weighty basis to keep the stay in place.