The High Court has refused a bankrupt’s application to stay an order that allowed the Official Assignee to pursue further bankruptcy applications and protect assets. The ruling leaves that order in effect while the bankrupt’s appeals continue; it does not decide the underlying applications to extend the bankruptcy or make a payment order.
Humphreys J. delivered the judgment on 13 July 2021. The application was made when the matter returned to the High Court on 5 July, after the bankrupt had appealed to the Court of Appeal against the court’s order of 17 May 2021 varying an earlier stay. The judge treated the appeal as effectively a fourth stay application and the fresh request as a fifth. The bankrupt sought to suspend the May order pending the appeal.
The bankrupt argued that the Official Assignee would not be prejudiced and that it was unfair to require him to contest matters in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court at the same time. The judge rejected those grounds. He said a further stay would allow asset dissipation to continue, and that having to fight on several fronts was not, by itself, a reason to grant a stay.
The judgment recounted that about €67,000 from the bankrupt’s pension had been liquidated and given to his wife after the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal against the bankruptcy adjudication. It also recorded that €53,118.27 collected from debtors and tenants had been dissipated. The judge said the risk of further loss to creditors was real. He considered that any prejudice to the bankrupt could be reversed if he ultimately succeeded in his Supreme Court appeal and exited bankruptcy, whereas creditors might not recover dissipated assets.
The court refused the stay and gave the Official Assignee liberty to ask the Examiner’s Office to list the matter when necessary for the applications under sections 85A or 85D of the Bankruptcy Act 1988, or for other necessary applications. Those applications concern extending the bankruptcy and a bankruptcy payment order. The judgment does not rule on their merits.