The High Court has directed that a bankruptcy summons issue against A.A. over an unpaid €275,000 settlement payment, but has not issued a summons against A.A.’s daughter, S.H.
In a judgment delivered on 25 March 2022, Mr Justice Brian O’Moore said the applicant, Leonard and Woods Development Limited, had shown a liquidated sum was owed by A.A. under a settlement agreement resolving earlier proceedings. The court was considering applications to issue bankruptcy summonses, not applications to adjudicate either respondent bankrupt.
The agreement required an initial €200,000 payment by 31 January 2020, which was paid, and a further €275,000 by 31 December 2020. It provided that if A.A. failed to make either payment, A.A. and S.H. would consent to summary judgment for the outstanding amount. The second payment was not made.
The company began summary proceedings against both respondents in May 2021, seeking judgment under the agreement. After appearances were entered for A.A. and S.H., it served bankruptcy demand documents in October 2021 and sought summonses instead of continuing to judgment. The company’s affidavit said it was concerned about the time needed to obtain and enforce a judgment, and was reserving its position in the summary proceedings.
The judge accepted that a bankruptcy summons can issue without a prior judgment where the debt is undisputed. He considered the signed settlement, the solicitors who witnessed it and later represented the respondents, and the correspondence after the missed payment. He said these circumstances provided sufficiently clear evidence of A.A.’s obligation.
S.H.’s position was different, the judge said. She had not undertaken to pay either instalment. Her liability under the agreement depended on summary judgment being entered against her, and no such judgment had yet been entered. The judge was therefore not satisfied that her liability for the €275,000 was sufficiently certain to support a bankruptcy summons at this point.
The court adjourned the application against S.H. generally, with liberty for the company to re-enter and seek to persuade the judge to revisit his view. It did not dismiss that application. The judgment does not determine the summary proceedings or make a bankruptcy adjudication against either respondent.