A settlement between Albert Perrin and four creditors does not prevent the Official Assignee from pursuing separate proceedings over a 2012 transfer of property, the High Court has ruled. The settlement also gives Perrin no defence or credit against those proceedings, the court decided.
The ruling by Ms Justice Pilkington answers two questions referred to her in a bankruptcy motion for directions. It does not decide the merits of the Official Assignee’s claim to an interest in the property. Perrin remains free to advance any defence available to him in that case, subject to the ruling on the settlement’s effect.
The dispute concerns a 2012 transfer by Heather Perrin, a discharged bankrupt, of her interest in a property at 6 Lambay Court, Malahide, to her spouse, Albert Perrin. The Official Assignee later issued proceedings seeking, among other relief, a declaration that the estate was entitled to a half share. The stated intention was to seek transfer of that interest for realisation and distribution among creditors. Those proceedings had been issued, but the judgment says a plenary summons was awaiting the outcome of the motion.
In October 2017, Albert Perrin agreed to pay €172,500 to settle proceedings brought by Gareth Gilroy, Fredric Ozanam Trust (Incorporated), Noel O’Hanrahan and Gerrard O’Callaghan. The written agreement allocated the sum among the named claims, costs and legal fees, and provided for the plaintiffs to stop or discontinue specified proceedings, subject to stated conditions. The Official Assignee did not sign it.
Perrin and his brother-in-law, Mark Thornburgh, said they understood the settlement would end any section 74 proceedings concerning the property, including future action by the Official Assignee. The Official Assignee disputed being bound by the agreement. The judge found no clear assurance from the Official Assignee that would create an estoppel, and said the written agreement could not reasonably be read as preventing the Official Assignee from bringing the later case. She also found no other binding agreement or document to that effect.
The court answered “No” to both referred questions: the settlement neither barred the Official Assignee’s proceedings nor provided a full defence; it also gave Perrin no partial defence or credit for €172,500 or another amount. The payment, the judge said, was made under the settlement and did not relate to the separate proceedings. The judgment does not resolve whether the Official Assignee will ultimately succeed in challenging the transfer.