The High Court has refused Noreen Hynes’s application to dismiss a bankruptcy summons, finding that her objections did not provide a basis to reopen an earlier judgment or set aside the summons.
In a judgment delivered on 30 September 2021, Mr Justice Humphreys said the bankruptcy summons had been correctly issued. The court directed that the petitions concerning Ms Hynes and Mr Alan Hynes be listed in the next Monday bankruptcy list to fix a hearing date. It did not decide the petitions themselves.
The judgment records that John and Bridget Atkinson obtained judgment in default of appearance in 2009 over a loan of €200,000. The amount said to remain due was €291,582.36, after costs, interest and a sum recovered by the Wexford County Sheriff. The judgment says an earlier application by both debtors to set aside the judgment was unsuccessful after a condition requiring money to be paid into court was not met.
Ms Hynes argued that she had not been involved in the underlying agreement and raised issues about service of the proceedings that led to the 2009 judgment. The judge said those matters could not be used in the bankruptcy proceedings to relitigate the debt or unravel the earlier judgment. He also rejected an informal suggestion that the judgment could be reopened under a court rule, noting that no motion had been made and that such a motion was not for the Bankruptcy List.
The judgment also addressed allegations that a sheriff’s seizure included electronic equipment containing images of Ms Hynes’s children, that property may have been sold at an undervalue, and that she had faced harassment or a vendetta. The judge said seizure-related issues were for the sheriff and that oppression had not been established as a basis to set aside the summons. He described the harassment allegations as vague and historical.
The court accepted that bankruptcy can affect a debtor’s personal status and said legislation must be complied with before an order with that effect is made. It found the legislation had been complied with. Claims of limited means, hardship and possible workplace prejudice did not justify dismissing the summons.