The High Court has allowed documents from private Irish family-law proceedings concerning a bankrupt, identified as S.D., to be used at a trial in the United States. The permission applies to documents already furnished to the US Trustee in Bankruptcy and is subject to an existing order of the US court.
In a judgment delivered on 1 May 2019, Ms Justice Pilkington varied an order made by Mr Justice McGovern in November 2014. Using section 135 of the Bankruptcy Act 1988, she granted the US Trustee leave to use the specified documents, insofar as they relate to S.D.’s bankrupt estate, in proceedings brought by Richard Coan against S.D. and others. The US proceedings were before Judge Meyer, who had made an order permitting use of the material on 15 February 2019.
The Official Assignee sought the Irish court’s permission after the US Trustee requested guidance on using the documents at trial. The material had originated in family-law proceedings and was previously disclosed to the trustee under orders that limited its use to bankruptcy investigations and imposed confidentiality protections. The High Court had also ordered that the current application be heard in private.
S.D. and G.K., who appeared as notice parties, opposed the application. Their counsel argued that trial use was different from investigative use and raised constitutional and European Convention rights concerns. They also challenged the redaction of documents used in US proceedings. The judge said the exhibits before her were redacted and that any dispute over their redaction was for the US court.
The judge treated the application as part of the continuing administration of S.D.’s bankruptcy, rather than a fresh challenge to earlier rulings. She noted that the earlier disclosure orders had not been appealed and said the current application should not become a rehearing of those decisions. In her view, using documents at a trial arising from the investigation was a continuation of the same bankruptcy process.
The judgment recorded that the US Trustee had agreed the family-law documents could be received under seal, with relevant transcripts and exhibits sealed and the jury instructed to maintain confidentiality. The judge requested particular care to protect the privacy of J.C. (J.D.), who was not a party to the US litigation. The court’s order grants leave in accordance with Judge Meyer’s order; it does not decide the US claims or direct how the US court must rule on any redaction application.
The High Court reserved the question of costs for a further hearing.