The Court of Appeal has dismissed Patrick J Daly’s appeal against an order that his bankruptcy remain in force until 23 November 2025, ten years after he was adjudicated bankrupt. The court held that the High Court had not imposed a sanction outside the range available for serious failures to cooperate with the Official Assignee.
The appeal concerned the High Court’s 18 October 2018 order under section 85A of the Bankruptcy Act 1988, as amended. The Official Assignee had sought an extension on grounds that Daly failed to cooperate in realising assets or had hidden or failed to disclose income or assets for creditors. The High Court set the discharge date at the tenth anniversary of the adjudication order, rather than the eight-year period referred to in some of the Official Assignee’s affidavits.
Daly argued that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to order a period beyond the five-year extension specified in the original notice of motion, which had not been amended. He also challenged the evidence and said the extension was disproportionate. The Court of Appeal rejected the jurisdiction argument, reading the motion in light of the statutory changes and the wider relief it sought. It also rejected the challenges based on hearsay and disputed evidence, finding no material issue that required cross-examination.
The judgment records that Daly was adjudicated bankrupt on 23 November 2015 on a petition by Bank of Ireland. He did not initially provide the Official Assignee with a Statement of Affairs or Statement of Personal Information, and the motion was advertised in newspapers after an order for substituted service. He later provided the statements and attended an interview.
The High Court had found that his cooperation remained limited and that he had not given meaningful explanations or supporting documents concerning transactions involving Ballinagore House, company shares and a Spanish apartment. Those were findings of the High Court considered on appeal, not new findings made after a trial in the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal described the extension power as penal and said the period must be proportionate to the wrongdoing and the bankrupt’s personal circumstances. It accepted the High Court’s assessment that the non-cooperation was at the serious end of the spectrum. Although the ten-year period was a severe sanction and the High Court could have chosen a shorter one, the Court of Appeal concluded it fell within the proper range and was not disproportionate. It dismissed the appeal.