The High Court has permitted the Official Assignee in Peter Clohessy’s bankruptcy to sell his interest in the family home, subject to first offering the property to the respondents at a reasonable price having regard to market value. The court stayed the sale and possession orders for six months from the date of the order.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys delivered judgment on 25 February 2021 in a motion under section 61 of the Bankruptcy Act 1988. The Official Assignee sought court approval to sell the property and an order requiring the respondents to give up vacant possession. Clohessy was adjudicated bankrupt on his own petition in January 2017. His interest in the jointly held home vested in the Official Assignee.
The judgment said Clohessy’s statement of affairs recorded debts of more than €13.68 million, and the home appeared to be the only real asset. The Official Assignee valued the property at €500,000 to €550,000; the respondents put a significantly lower value on it. The court did not determine the property’s value or the dispute about mortgage contributions made by Clohessy’s wife. Those matters were left for agreement or a further court application if the parties could not agree.
The respondents raised concerns including access to the site, planning issues and boundary questions. The property was described as landlocked, with a holistic centre and some services partly outside its boundary. The Official Assignee said he was negotiating with the receiver of the adjoining farm about access and boundaries. The judge held those issues did not justify refusing the sale order, and said an alleged risk of an undervalue sale had not been established.
The judge recognised that Clohessy’s wife and three children would lose their home, and that she would also lose the ability to run her business there. He concluded those consequences did not amount to special circumstances sufficient to refuse the order, given the creditors’ interests and the delay since the bankruptcy.
The order allows the Official Assignee to sell the dwelling to realise Clohessy’s interest, after the boundary and access issues are resolved and the respondents have first been offered the property at a reasonable market-related price. The respondents were also ordered to yield up vacant possession, but both orders are stayed for six months. The court allowed either side to return if they cannot agree a price after the title-related issues are resolved.