The High Court found grounds to extend John Hoey’s bankruptcy after concluding that he had failed to cooperate with the Official Assignee in realising assets and had failed to disclose income or assets. It did not set the length of any extension or make a final order on the application. Instead, it invited submissions on whether to adjourn briefly to allow further cooperation before deciding the extension and any costs orders.
The application was brought by Christopher D. Lehane, the Official Assignee in Hoey’s bankruptcy, under section 85A of the Bankruptcy Act 1988. The Assignee had sought an extension of up to ten years. Hoey was adjudicated bankrupt on 29 February 2016. His bankruptcy period had previously been extended pending determination of the application.
The Assignee relied on four grounds: farm machinery moved from Hoey’s property, Anna Croft, to storage at the Oasis Hotel; about €12,000 found concealed behind a radiator at Hoey’s premises; Kepak cheque proceeds; and Hoey’s failure to provide a proper statement of affairs. Hoey disputed the allegations and gave explanations, including that he had retained cash for living expenses, that the first Kepak cheque had been cashed before his bankruptcy, and that he had supplied information about his assets through other documents.
The judge said the machinery had been recovered and was part of the bankruptcy estate. The evidence before the court did not establish Hoey’s claim that it was not an estate asset. On the cash, the judge found on the balance of probabilities that significant money had been hidden and not disclosed, and that Hoey had not provided a credible or proper explanation. The court also considered the handling of Kepak proceeds, including payments by cheque to third parties that led to applications for Mareva injunctions.
The judge described the continuing absence of a proper statement of affairs as the most troublesome issue. Hoey said he had delivered one to the Examiner’s Office and relied on other documentation, but the judge found that no proper statement had been provided to the Official Assignee. The court held that the cash non-disclosure and the matters concerning assets supported a finding of failure to cooperate under section 85A(1)(a), and that the failure to provide the statement of affairs breached section 85A(1)(b).
The judge said the conduct was less serious than in a cited earlier case but considered the non-cooperation persistent and ongoing. A letter from the Assignee’s solicitors had indicated they would seek no further extension if Hoey undertook to cooperate with the sale of Anna Croft and surrounding lands. The court noted there had been no response to that letter. It left open whether a short adjournment might allow further cooperation and said it would hear the parties on that question, the possible extension and the terms of any orders, including costs.