The Dublin Circuit Court has approved a personal insolvency arrangement for Stephen Green, confirming it can take effect despite an objection by Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC.
In a judgment delivered on 6 November 2024, Judge Gerard Meehan found that Green was insolvent for the purposes of the Personal Insolvency Acts because his principal private residence was not a readily realisable asset. He made the order under section 115A(9), following a one-day hearing on 16 October 2020. The judgment says the application came before the court by notice of motion returnable on 19 June 2023.
The home in Swords was valued at €410,000, with a mortgage balance of €233,865.50 and equity of €176,134.50. The judge considered that four people lived there, two with health difficulties, and that finding alternative accommodation could take months. Ongoing litigation between Green and Pepper was about seven years old when a protective certificate issued in 2023. Those circumstances, he concluded, could delay realising the property’s value.
Pepper argued that Green was not insolvent, that the arrangement was unaffordable or unsustainable, and that it would be unfairly prejudiced. It pointed to proposed monthly repayments of €1,227.95 from month 13 and questioned whether Green could afford a variable interest rate after two years.
The judge noted different income and expenditure figures in the personal financial statement, the arrangement summary and a later affidavit from the personal insolvency practitioner. He found that the available monthly surpluses were significant, including when assessed against the updated figures. The practitioner said Green’s three adult children continued to contribute to household costs, although those payments were not included in the arrangement because the children had no legal obligation to make them.
The court also considered Green’s payment history. The practitioner said he had paid an average of €1,050 a month against €1,350 due. The judge said the shortfall was not legally excused by the parties’ litigation or the then interest rate, but treated those circumstances as context. He found nothing in Green’s conduct that showed he was unlikely to comply with the arrangement.
On unfair prejudice, the judgment records that Pepper would recover 100% of its debt in a bankruptcy scenario, but would receive repayment over 253 months under the arrangement at a lower rate than its contractual entitlement. The judge found no evidence that the proposed 3% variable rate was unfairly prejudicial. He also concluded that retaining the home was proportionate to the family’s circumstances and that the arrangement enabled Pepper to recover its debt to the extent Green’s means reasonably permitted.
The court therefore confirmed the proposed arrangement’s coming into effect. The order approves the arrangement under section 115A(9); the judgment does not set out its full payment schedule.