The High Court has refused a bankrupt’s applications to cross-examine the Official Assignee and to invalidate a warrant used to search premises at 19 Churchfield, Straffan, County Kildare. It also refused a separate motion by Traviata Ltd., Gayle Dunne, John Dunne and Lucy Rainey seeking the return of property and related orders.
In a judgment delivered on 10 April 2014, Mr Justice Brian J. McGovern said the bankrupt had shown no basis for finding the search warrant defective on its face. The warrant was issued under section 28 of the Bankruptcy Act 1988. The judge said the issuing court could rely on hearsay in the Official Assignee’s affidavit for that purpose, and that cross-examination was not required to test the information behind the warrant. Issuing the warrant to both the Official Assignee and the Bankruptcy Inspector was, at most, superfluous and did not affect its validity.
The judge said the Official Assignee could rely on information without revealing its source when seeking a warrant. He rejected the applications to cross-examine, concluding that such an order was neither necessary nor desirable in the interests of justice. The warrant had already been executed, and the judgment left open the possibility of later hearings about ownership of items found at the premises. Any such ownership issue would have to be established through evidence in the usual way.
There were disputes over the beneficial ownership of the premises and the ownership of goods and other contents there. The bankrupt alleged the premises belonged to Traviata Ltd., which he said was wholly owned by an Isle of Man trust whose beneficiaries were claimed to be his lineal descendants. The judgment did not decide those ownership questions. It said they could be addressed through discussion or, if unresolved, an inquiry in the bankruptcy proceedings.
The judgment also addressed requests concerning confidential family-law papers, an inventory of removed items, a stay on further applications by the Official Assignee, and a declaration about the effect of the bankrupt’s prior US bankruptcy. It said the inventory had already been provided; the stay application was moot after an earlier refusal; and the remaining questions did not require cross-examination. The court refused the reliefs in the bankrupt’s motions dated 3 December 2013, 28 February 2014 and 13 March 2014, as well as the 4 December 2013 motion by the four other applicants. It made no order on the Official Assignee’s application to cross-examine those parties, because he said he would not pursue it if his own cross-examination was not ordered.