The Court of Appeal dismissed Dr. Anthony O’Reilly’s appeal against an order requiring him to disclose sworn information about his means of satisfying an unpaid judgment in favour of Allied Irish Banks plc (AIB).
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan on 6 October 2015, upheld the High Court order made by Mr Justice McGovern on 8 June 2015. The order required O’Reilly to provide a statement of affairs, supporting documents and details of qualifying asset transfers within the previous five years. It also required the constitutive documents and latest management accounts of eight named companies in which AIB contended he had an interest.
The High Court had entered judgment against O’Reilly for €22,657,432.10 on 23 June 2014. AIB’s evidence said €14,291,362.46 remained unpaid as of 20 April 2015. The Court of Appeal said the disclosure order was made under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to assist a proposed examination under Order 42, rule 36 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. The examination and disclosure were intended to establish what property or other means could satisfy the judgment.
O’Reilly challenged the evidence supporting the order, argued that AIB had a collateral purpose, and said the order was too broad. The court held that a judgment creditor seeking an examination and related disclosure against the judgment debtor need only establish an unsatisfied judgment. A debtor could point to special circumstances, but the court found none established here. It also found no cogent evidence that AIB did not genuinely intend to examine O’Reilly or seek information about means of satisfying the judgment.
On the scope of the order, the court concluded that questions about past transfers could be asked at an examination where a debtor might retain a beneficial interest or other entitlement in transferred property. It also considered questions about the named companies’ financial standing could be relevant to whether they represented means available to satisfy the debt. The court said a more specific disclosure order was permissible so long as it stayed within the scope of the examination.
The appeal was dismissed. The remaining issue was to vary the compliance date because the original deadline had passed while a stay was in place pending the appeal. The judgment does not state the revised deadline in the supplied text. The order for O’Reilly’s attendance for examination had not been abandoned by AIB; the application to set a date had been deferred.