The High Court has adjudicated Michael Wymes and Richard Wood bankrupt following petitions brought by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and Michael O’Connell. Mr Justice Meenan delivered judgment on 20 March 2018, after hearing the petitions on 23 January.
The petitions concerned an unpaid costs debt arising from the Bula litigation. A costs order was made against Mr Wymes and Mr Wood in 1997. A certificate of taxed costs issued in 2003 for €3,297,493.33; with interest, the total was €4,881,735.59. Bankruptcy summonses were served on both men in March 2010, and the petitions were issued in June that year.
The court said neither debtor paid the sum within 14 days of service of the summons. It therefore found that each had committed an act of bankruptcy under section 7(1)(g) of the Bankruptcy Act 1988. Earlier challenges to the summonses had failed, including appeals to the Supreme Court, which upheld their validity.
Mr Wymes appeared without a lawyer and filed affidavits opposing the petition. Mr Wood, represented by counsel, did not consent to the orders but filed no affidavits. Mr Wymes argued, among other things, that applying to dismiss the summons within the 14-day period meant he was not obliged to pay; that delay, limitation, execution of the debt and the public-interest nature of the original litigation barred bankruptcy; and that assets could cover the debt. He also alleged improper or collateral purposes in pursuing the proceedings.
Justice Meenan rejected the defences. He said the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the challenge to the summons meant the payment obligation remained. Several other arguments had already been determined in prior proceedings or could not be re-litigated in the petition. Although the court can stay bankruptcy proceedings in its inherent jurisdiction, the judge found no grounds to do so.
The judgment noted that the debtors’ liabilities exceeded €3 million and that a Personal Insolvency Arrangement was not available without creditor consent; the petitioning creditor did not consent. The court was satisfied that the requirements of section 11(1) had been met and ordered that both men be adjudicated bankrupt. The judgment records that order; it does not set out further administration of either bankruptcy.