The High Court has confirmed a six-year personal insolvency arrangement for Jane Moran Doyle, setting aside a Circuit Court order that had refused the application. Mr Justice Mark Sanfey ruled on 11 August 2022 that she was reasonably likely to meet the arrangement’s terms and had a reasonable prospect of resolving her debts without bankruptcy.
The application was brought under section 115A(9) of the Personal Insolvency Acts after sole creditor Promontoria Oyster DAC objected to the proposal. The creditor argued that the plan depended on €1,000 monthly maintenance from Doyle’s former husband, whom the parties accepted was insolvent, and that the payments might not continue. It also alleged that Doyle had not disclosed a 99 per cent shareholding in Carlow E-Learning Direct Limited.
The proposed plan runs for 72 months. It provides for a monthly contribution totalling €40,991.52 over that period and restructures the mortgage on Doyle’s principal private residence. The property’s agreed value was €310,000, against a mortgage balance of about €1.38 million in July 2019. The secured debt would be reduced to the property’s value, with the balance treated as unsecured. The court noted that the plan’s estimated return to the creditor was higher than the projected return in bankruptcy.
On the maintenance issue, the judge noted evidence that the €12,000 annual payment was provided for in a 2016 agreement and had been paid weekly. The payment was linked to income from the company, which the court had no evidence was not trading successfully. The judge said future certainty was not required when assessing whether compliance was reasonably likely. He also noted that the creditor could rely on its security or seek bankruptcy if Doyle later could not meet the arrangement.
On the shareholding, company returns for 2018 and 2019 recorded Doyle as holding 99 per cent of the shares. However, an accountant’s 2019 letter said 98 shares had been transferred to her daughter in 2016 and that the return had not been updated because of an office oversight. The judge criticised the repeated incorrect filings but found no basis to infer that the letter was intended to mislead. He concluded that the evidence did not establish that Doyle retained the shares or breached her disclosure obligations.
The High Court set aside the Circuit Court’s order of 5 May 2021 and confirmed that the proposed arrangement would take effect in accordance with its terms.