The High Court dismissed Liam Campion’s application to dismiss a bankruptcy summons, ruling that the 14-day deadline could not be extended after an act of bankruptcy had occurred. The court did not decide whether the underlying debt was statute-barred; that issue may be considered when the creditor’s bankruptcy petition is heard.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Mark Sanfey on 20 July 2023, concerned a €30,500 Circuit Court decree obtained by Leading Edge Project Management Ltd against Mr Campion in 2008. The company, which is in voluntary liquidation, was represented in the application by its liquidator, John Healy.
The High Court granted leave for a bankruptcy summons in March 2022. The summons was served on 18 May 2022. Mr Campion did not pay, secure or compound the sum within 14 days. The company presented a bankruptcy petition on 29 August 2022.
In February 2023, Mr Campion applied to dismiss the summons. He said he was not indebted to the company for more than €20,000 and argued that the 2008 judgment was more than 12 years old, so issuing the summons breached the Statute of Limitations Act 1957. His application was more than eight months after the 14-day period had expired and six months after the petition was filed.
The company argued that the deadline could not be extended because the 14-day period also governed when an act of bankruptcy arose under the Bankruptcy Act. Mr Campion sought an extension under the court rules, arguing that the court had broad powers to enlarge procedural time limits.
Mr Justice Sanfey held that the 14-day deadline for applying to dismiss the summons was mandated by the statutory scheme, even though its duration was set out in court rules. The deadline ran alongside the period after which failure to comply with a summons constitutes an act of bankruptcy. Once that period passed, the court said, the creditor was entitled to petition.
The judge said a debtor could still raise an infirmity in a summons at the petition hearing or after adjudication through a statutory application. But he found it was too late to use an extension of time to prevent the creditor from proceeding on the basis of the act of bankruptcy. Even if an extension power existed, he said it should be limited to very compelling circumstances and delays of days rather than weeks. The delay here could not qualify; attempted settlement discussions did not change that conclusion.
The court did not determine whether there was an issue for trial about whether the 2008 judgment was statute-barred. It dismissed Mr Campion’s application, allowing the bankruptcy petition to proceed to a hearing. The judgment did not adjudicate him bankrupt or decide the petition.