The High Court has extended Angela Farrell’s bankruptcy by four years after finding serious and continuing failures to cooperate with the Official Assignee. The extension runs from the date she otherwise would have been automatically discharged. The court did not extend the period by the five years sought.
The Official Assignee applied under section 85A of the Bankruptcy Act 1988, alleging that Farrell had failed to assist in realising assets and had hidden or failed to disclose income or assets. The court heard the motion on 10 October and 1 November 2016. An interim order had extended the bankruptcy pending the decision.
The Official Assignee’s evidence was that Farrell had not disclosed an address where she could regularly be contacted, filed neither a statement of affairs nor personal information, and did not attend an interview. He said she had to be summoned for examination under section 21 and, after giving some information, refused to identify alleged transferees of properties or provide transfer dates and explanations. He also said he could not establish her income or whether any surplus was available to creditors.
Information provided during the examination enabled the Official Assignee to realise 2,558 shares in CRH plc. The €68,592 proceeds went into the bankrupt’s estate. The Official Assignee said the shares would not otherwise have been identified and realised.
Farrell did not contest the Official Assignee’s account of her cooperation. Her opposition instead rested on her contention that the 2014 bankruptcy adjudication was void and that the court therefore lacked authority to hear the application. The judge rejected those arguments, finding that challenges to the adjudication had already been considered and rejected, and that the adjudication remained binding. The court also rejected her arguments that the application was out of time and that it could not make the interim order.
Justice Costello found considerable uncontroverted evidence of failures to cooperate and disclose assets. She described the conduct as severe and the breaches as serious, multiple and continuous. However, she said it had not been established that the conduct gravely prejudiced creditors: properties not initially disclosed appeared to be charged to secured creditors, and the Official Assignee could not say whether undisclosed income had harmed creditors.
Applying the requirement that an extension be proportionate to the wrongdoing and its consequences, the judge concluded that four years was appropriate. The order extends the bankruptcy from the otherwise applicable automatic discharge date; it does not impose the five-year extension requested.