The High Court has refused Brendan Hade and Sheila Hade’s applications to annul their bankruptcy adjudications, holding that a €63 error in particulars attached to the bankruptcy summonses did not invalidate them because the sums demanded were correctly calculated.
Mr Justice Mark Sanfey delivered the judgment on 27 April 2022. The Hades had been adjudicated bankrupt on 11 November 2019 and discharged a year later. Their applications to show cause against the adjudications were heard on 1 February 2022.
Feniton Property Finance DAC’s summonses each demanded €1,802,474.99, comprising a €1,653,605.23 judgment debt and interest. The particulars stated one interest figure as €90,907.93, although the correct amount was €90,970.93. The Hades argued that this made the demand excessive and the summonses invalid.
The judge accepted that an excessive sum demanded in a bankruptcy summons can invalidate it, even if the overstatement is small. But he found that the amount demanded on the face of these summonses was accurate and due. The discrepancy was in an attached interest figure; the particulars gave enough information to identify the transposition by calculation. The Hades did not claim they had been misled by the error or that it caused them not to pay. The court therefore found that the error did not invalidate the summonses.
The Hades also asked the court to annul the adjudications on just and equitable grounds, principally so they could pursue proposed claims against the bank, Feniton, a broker identified as Mr L, and receivers. They alleged, among other matters, that the receivership and loan enforcement were improper. Those were allegations in the proposed proceedings, not findings made in this judgment.
The judge held that any claims relating to the Hades’ estates remained vested in the Official Assignee. Whether proceedings should be brought was for the Official Assignee to decide; annulment was not necessary for the claims to be considered on behalf of the estates. The judge also noted that the Hades had not contested the earlier judgment application, the bankruptcy summonses or the bankruptcy petitions. He found no basis to annul the adjudications as just and equitable.
The applications were refused. The court invited written submissions within 14 days on consequential orders, including costs, and said it would finalise the orders afterward.