Judgment: 2018-12-05 · Court archive

Court of Appeal allows debtor’s appeal over eligibility for insolvency arrangement review

The court ruled that a late application could not revive an expired protective certificate, and sent the debtor’s application back to the High Court for determination.

Court of Appeal · [2018] IECA 397

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Michael Hickey
What

The court ruled that a late application could not revive an expired protective certificate, and sent the debtor’s application back to the High Court for determination.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 4 July 2016; 20 November 2017

    The dispute concerned whether a protective certificate issued to Mr Hickey on 4 July 2016 continued to protect him until January 2017, when a court dismissed an earlier application he had made under section 115A of the Personal Insolvency Act. The High Court had concluded that the certificate remained in effect until that dismissal. As a result, it found he had been subject to a certificate within the 12 months before a second certificate issued on 20 November 2017, making him ineligible to propose another PIA.

  • 23 September 2016

    The earlier application was lodged on 23 September 2016, one day outside the 14-day period following a creditors’ meeting on 9 September. The Court of Appeal said the earlier judgment had established that the application was late. The first certificate had already expired by the end of its 70-day term, and lodging the late application could not revive it or extend its protection until the court ruled on that application.

  • 25 January 2018

    The second PIA was rejected at a creditors’ meeting on 25 January 2018. Mr Hickey lodged his second section 115A application on 5 February. KBC Bank Ireland objected, arguing that he was ineligible because of the first certificate. The Court of Appeal allowed his appeal on that eligibility issue and remitted the second application to the High Court. The judgment does not determine the merits of the proposed PIA or the final outcome of the remitted application.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal by Michael Hickey over his eligibility to seek court confirmation of a proposed Personal Insolvency Arrangement (PIA), despite creditors having rejected it. The court remitted the application to the High Court for determination; it did not itself decide whether the PIA should be confirmed.

The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal by Michael Hickey over his eligibility to seek court confirmation of a proposed Personal Insolvency Arrangement (PIA), despite creditors having rejected it. The court remitted the application to the High Court for determination; it did not itself decide whether the PIA should be confirmed.

The dispute concerned whether a protective certificate issued to Mr Hickey on 4 July 2016 continued to protect him until January 2017, when a court dismissed an earlier application he had made under section 115A of the Personal Insolvency Act. The High Court had concluded that the certificate remained in effect until that dismissal. As a result, it found he had been subject to a certificate within the 12 months before a second certificate issued on 20 November 2017, making him ineligible to propose another PIA.

The earlier application was lodged on 23 September 2016, one day outside the 14-day period following a creditors’ meeting on 9 September. The Court of Appeal said the earlier judgment had established that the application was late. The first certificate had already expired by the end of its 70-day term, and lodging the late application could not revive it or extend its protection until the court ruled on that application.

The appeal court upheld the High Court’s interpretation that a debtor who lodges a section 115A application within the statutory 14 days remains protected pending the determination of that application, even if the certificate’s 70-day period has expired. But that protection did not apply to Mr Hickey’s first application because it was outside the 14-day limit.

The second PIA was rejected at a creditors’ meeting on 25 January 2018. Mr Hickey lodged his second section 115A application on 5 February. KBC Bank Ireland objected, arguing that he was ineligible because of the first certificate. The Court of Appeal allowed his appeal on that eligibility issue and remitted the second application to the High Court. The judgment does not determine the merits of the proposed PIA or the final outcome of the remitted application.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review