The Supreme Court has dismissed B.A.’s application to set aside earlier High Court and Supreme Court judgments in matrimonial proceedings, ruling that he had not demonstrated standing to pursue it under Irish law.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Laffoy on 9 November 2015, dealt only with a preliminary question: whether B.A. had locus standi to maintain his 2015 application. The Court did not decide his allegations of objective or apprehended bias, nor did it determine the separate interim relief he had sought in relation to assets.
The underlying dispute began with A.A.’s 2006 application to revisit financial orders made in 2001. A High Court judge varied the financial provision in 2009 after finding deliberate non-disclosure of assets. The Supreme Court upheld that decision in 2014, subject to a limited issue about a bond being sent back to the High Court. In October 2014, the High Court found the bond had the potential to increase resources available to B.A. The Supreme Court judgment also left the divorce decree in place.
B.A. was adjudicated bankrupt in the United States in March 2013 and in Ireland in July 2013. He argued that his application raised personal constitutional rights and that his earlier US bankruptcy, and the position under US law, meant he retained an interest in pursuing it. The Official Assignee argued that the dispute concerned B.A.’s estate and that decisions about proceedings relating to that property belonged to the bankruptcy representative.
Justice Laffoy concluded that B.A.’s earlier role had been to defend against A.A.’s claim for further provision from his assets. If his 2015 application succeeded, the practical result would be that A.A. could have to relitigate that claim and B.A. could defend it again. The Court found he had not shown a separate personal interest in that outcome under Irish law.
The Court did not decide where the estate was vested between the Irish Official Assignee and the US Chapter 7 Trustee. It said the trustee was not before the Court and the evidence about US law and the trustee’s current position was insufficient to determine whether US law gave B.A. a personal interest. The burden of establishing standing rested on B.A.; the deficiencies in his evidence meant he could not pursue the application.
The Court dismissed the 2015 application. It also observed that a bankrupt who disputes the Official Assignee’s authority over proposed proceedings should raise that issue at the outset, with any dispute initially for the High Court.