The Supreme Court has remitted a creditor’s unresolved objection to a personal insolvency arrangement to the High Court, which must now determine the outstanding issues on his appeal. The court did not decide whether the objection should succeed.
The decision follows the Court’s earlier ruling that Michael O’Flynn had standing to object, even though he had not initially proved his debt. A later High Court order allowed him to prove a debt of €1. The remaining questions were where his objection should be considered and who should pay the costs.
Mr O’Flynn argued that the matter should go to the Circuit Court, where his substantive objections had not been heard, so that he would have a first-instance hearing followed by an appeal. The personal insolvency practitioner argued for remittal to the High Court, the court that had heard the appeal from the Circuit Court.
Delivering judgment on 15 May 2024, Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne said the High Court’s appeal had covered the whole Circuit Court judgment. It could have considered Mr O’Flynn’s objections if it had accepted that he had standing. The Supreme Court had set aside the High Court’s order, and the case should return to the point where that court’s jurisdiction had been invoked. It was therefore appropriate for the High Court to decide the outstanding issues.
The Court also considered costs. It said costs are not generally awarded against a personal insolvency practitioner acting bona fide, though an award is possible in exceptional circumstances. The judge criticised the parties’ confrontational approach and said the practitioner had vigorously pursued a legal argument on standing that the Supreme Court ultimately rejected. However, she found no basis for the allegation that the practitioner acted in bad faith and no exceptional circumstances warranting a costs order against him.
The Supreme Court ordered that each party bear their own costs of the hearing before it. It was accepted that the costs orders against Mr O’Flynn in the Circuit Court and High Court should be set aside. The judgment does not state the final outcome of his objection to the arrangement; that remains for the High Court.