The High Court has dismissed Patrick Doherty’s application to dismiss a bankruptcy summons issued by Blessville Unlimited Company, finding that he had not shown a real and substantial issue for trial about the €151,000 debt underlying it.
Mr Justice Mícheál O’Higgins ruled on 18 July 2023 that the debtor could not use the summons application to revisit a 2020 High Court order directing him to pay the amount. The order had not been appealed or set aside. The judge said the evidence did not establish a basis for going behind it.
The debt arose from proceedings brought by Mr Doherty against the company. A November 2019 consent order required him to remove goods and chattels from an address in Co Wicklow and pay €46,000. It also provided that, in default, the company could recover €151,000 on its counterclaim. In February 2020, the High Court ordered the company to recover that sum after Mr Doherty failed to comply with the earlier order. The judgment records that he was represented by counsel at the February hearing but did not attend in person.
Mr Doherty argued that the earlier order was ambiguous about whether both obligations had to be breached before the €151,000 became payable. He also claimed that the company had prevented his agents from collecting the goods, which he said were worth more than the debt. The judge noted conflicting affidavit evidence about whether collection had been attempted, but found that this did not justify setting aside or revisiting the later court order. He described Mr Doherty’s account of why he did not attend the February 2020 hearing as unconvincing and lacking credibility.
The ruling concerns only the application to dismiss the summons. The judge made no finding on whether Mr Doherty lived or carried on business at a Dublin address, or on his centre of main interests or domicile. He held those jurisdictional questions over for any bankruptcy petition that might be presented, saying the parties could provide further evidence then. He also left an objection about the creditor’s name on the summons undecided because it was not pursued in submissions.
The judge’s provisional costs order was to reserve the creditor’s costs to the hearing of any petition, unless the parties sought a hearing on costs. The dismissal of the application does not itself adjudicate a bankruptcy petition or determine the reserved issues.