The High Court has dismissed Gayle Dunne’s application to cross-examine the Official Assignee in bankruptcy on affidavits supporting an application for an interim worldwide Mareva injunction. The court also refused her request to exclude transcripts of two examinations conducted under bankruptcy legislation.
The injunction application seeks to restrain Ms Dunne from reducing her personal assets below €50 million while recovery proceedings continue. It has not been determined in this judgment. The court ruled only on whether cross-examination should be allowed at the interlocutory hearing and whether the transcripts could be used.
The Official Assignee alleges that Sean Dunne transferred shares and shareholder loans to his wife and/or companies she controlled, and seeks to recover assets for his bankruptcy estate. Ms Dunne’s defence includes an alleged 2005 agreement under which, she says, assets were to be transferred to her in return for her giving up her career and future family-law claims and raising the couple’s children. She has said Walford, a property on Shrewsbury Road in Dublin, was acquired as part performance of that agreement. The Official Assignee disputes that account.
Ms Dunne argued that the Official Assignee’s affidavits contained material omissions and overstatements, including about Walford and the company Yesreb, and that questioning was needed to assess whether his conduct should affect the court’s decision on the injunction. The judge accepted that some statements about Ms Dunne’s knowledge of Yesreb were incorrect or overstated. She found, however, that the underlying evidence and the basis for the Official Assignee’s conclusions were before the court, allowing the injunction judge to assess them without cross-examination.
The judge said the application did not identify factual conflicts requiring resolution by questioning the Official Assignee. In her view, the court considering the injunction could assess the affidavits and exhibits independently, including any alleged nondisclosure or culpable overstatement. She concluded that exceptional circumstances warranting cross-examination at an interlocutory hearing had not been established.
Ms Dunne also sought to exclude transcripts of evidence given by two former lawyers of the bankrupt during section 21 investigations. The judge held that the Official Assignee could use relevant information gathered in those investigations in proceedings to recover assets for the bankruptcy estate, and found no unfairness requiring the transcripts’ exclusion.
The court dismissed the application. It did not decide whether the injunction should be granted, determine ownership of Walford, or resolve the underlying recovery claims.