The High Court found that bankrupt Godfrey Lalor failed to cooperate with the Official Assignee over the realisation of Monte Rosa, a property on Sorrento Road in Dalkey. It also found grounds under the Bankruptcy Act to extend his bankruptcy because he hid or failed to disclose his legal and beneficial interest in the property. The court did not decide the length of any extension or make a final extension order at this stage.
The Official Assignee had sought the maximum available extension, then 15 years, alleging that Lalor had withheld information and failed to cooperate in identifying assets for creditors. The application was brought under section 85A of the Bankruptcy Act 1988. Lalor was adjudicated bankrupt on 27 June 2016.
Justice Pilkington said documents obtained from solicitors showed that Monte Rosa was bought in 2008 for €5.1 million, with Lalor named as beneficiary in a declaration of trust. A later declaration, signed by Lalor, stated that he held his interest for Berncastle Limited. The judge said there was a question over whether the dissolved company had any beneficial interest. She recorded the Official Assignee’s evidence that, following a mediated agreement with Lalor’s spouse, the Official Assignee became Berncastle’s sole shareholder. On that basis, the judge said Lalor retained no legal or beneficial interest in Monte Rosa, and the Official Assignee could proceed to realise the asset for creditors.
The judge noted that Lalor identified where relevant documents were held during a court examination under oath in April 2018, but the Official Assignee had to obtain them. She found the documentation could have been disclosed earlier and that resolving the property’s ownership had required significant additional time and effort. She accepted the Official Assignee’s contention that Lalor’s initial information was disingenuous at best and found that he had failed to disclose the property as his family home, contrary to evidence from his spouse that she and their family had lived there since its acquisition.
The judge said it was difficult to determine whether Lalor deliberately hid or failed to disclose the position, but concluded that the statutory grounds for an extension were met. She took account of his age and said more comprehensive cooperation could be relevant to the eventual extension. She invited the parties to address whether the matter should be adjourned briefly, perhaps for months, to allow for further cooperation before she decided the extension period and any other relief. The judgment therefore left those matters unresolved.