The Court of Appeal has refused Dominic Carney leave to bring a motion seeking a constitutional review of its judgment in a bankruptcy dispute involving Bank of Scotland plc and Gearóid Costelloe.
In a ruling delivered on 23 December 2024, the panel said the proposed application did not justify a hearing on its merits. It directed the registrar to notify Carney of the refusal. The court had already dismissed his appeal on 3 October 2024; the dismissal order had not yet been perfected while the parties made submissions on costs.
Carney’s proposed challenge concerned the court’s interpretation of section 85(3A) of the Bankruptcy Act 1988. In the original appeal, he argued that when he was automatically discharged from bankruptcy on 12 March 2020, his unrealised estate should have returned to him three years after his adjudication. The court described section 85(3A) as providing for the return of a family home in specified circumstances, and said Carney’s argument was that the provision applied to all unrealised estate, not just the family home.
The ruling recounted Carney’s view that an Official Assignee should have a finite period to deal with a bankrupt’s estate and that indefinite vesting after discharge conflicted with the intended “second chance” of bankruptcy. The panel said legislative amendments reducing the bankruptcy period had provided for unrealised property to remain vested in the Official Assignee for creditors, subject to the family-home exception. It said the proposed applicant had identified no basis for treating those amendments as merely transitional.
The court said its power to review a final and conclusive decision is wholly exceptional and requires an objectively demonstrated, fundamental issue of constitutional justice affecting the result. It cannot be used to revisit the merits or simply because a party disagrees with the outcome. The panel found that Carney’s materials did not identify exceptional circumstances, an error or another strong reason warranting review, and that the application did not substantively raise a qualifying denial-of-justice issue.
The ruling addressed only whether Carney could make the proposed review application. Leave was refused; the court did not reopen or alter its October judgment dismissing the appeal.