The Court of Appeal has refused Patrick Doherty’s appeal over a 2021 bankruptcy summons, holding that the dispute was moot because the creditor could no longer rely on that summons to seek his bankruptcy.
The appeal concerned the High Court’s refusal to dismiss a summons issued by Blessville Unlimited Company on 26 July 2021. Although issued that month, the summons was not served until July 2022. Doherty applied to dismiss it later that month. The High Court refused the application in July 2023, and he appealed in October 2024 after the order was perfected.
In April 2024, Blessville issued a second bankruptcy summons, which was served on Doherty. The court said the 14-day period passed without him taking steps in relation to the debt. Blessville then presented a bankruptcy petition within the statutory three-month period. The application concerning that second summons and the petition remained before the High Court, awaiting the outcome of this appeal.
The Court of Appeal said the creditor had confirmed it was not relying on any act of bankruptcy arising from the 2021 summons and could no longer do so as a matter of law. It therefore considered the validity of that summons irrelevant to the live bankruptcy proceedings and refused the appeal as moot.
Doherty argued that the written particulars of demand had not been served before the first summons. The court noted that the creditor’s evidence was that they had been sent by certified post in October 2020 to an address Doherty had given in earlier proceedings. The court said the rules required service by ordinary prepaid post at the debtor’s last known address or place of business, not proof of personal service. It found that Doherty had not provided sufficient evidence that the creditor failed to meet the statutory requirement. The court also held that the dispute over service did not affect the later summons or petition.
Doherty also disputed the debt underlying the summons, despite an unappealed and unsatisfied High Court judgment requiring him to pay €151,000. He alleged that Blessville had prevented him from collecting chattels from its premises and that their value, or proceeds from their sale, should reduce the debt. Blessville disputed that he had been prevented from collecting them.
The appeal court agreed with the High Court that the evidence did not provide a sufficient basis to go behind the final judgment. It found no evidence that Blessville sold the chattels and kept the proceeds without crediting Doherty, or evidence establishing the items’ value. The judgment records that the evidence was that the chattels were eventually disposed of by being dumped.
The court refused the appeal. It did not determine the application concerning the second summons or the bankruptcy petition, which remained before the High Court.