Judgment: 2018-02-21 · Court archive

High Court sanctions sale of bankrupt’s family home, postponed for one year

The court also adjourned a separate application to extend the bankrupt’s discharge period until February 2019, seeking an update from the Official Assignee before deciding it.

High Court · [2018] IEHC 181

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Official Assignee
  • Kildare County Council
What

The court also adjourned a separate application to extend the bankrupt’s discharge period until February 2019, seeking an update from the Official Assignee before deciding it.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The judge considered the home’s importance to the wife and children, her non-involvement in the bankrupt’s loans and the substantial unpaid debts. She also noted that the bankrupt had not cooperated with the Official Assignee and that no offer had been made to buy the Official Assignee’s interest. The court concluded that the Court of Appeal’s decision in a separate case about jointly owned property did not prevent a sale under the Bankruptcy Act. It sanctioned the sale and postponed it for one year.

The High Court sanctioned the sale of a bankrupt man’s family home in Co Kildare but postponed the sale for one year, balancing the creditors’ interests against those of his wife and two young children.

In a judgment delivered on 21 February 2018, Ms Justice Costello said the Official Assignee had become the registered full owner of the property following the man’s adjudication as bankrupt on 4 July 2016. The home was valued at €275,000 and was unencumbered, offering a prospect of recovery for creditors. The largest identified creditor, Danske Bank, had obtained a judgment for €1,296,114.47 in 2013 and claimed a debt exceeding €1.5 million. Kildare County Council was also identified as a creditor, claiming €7,580.

The bankrupt’s wife opposed the sale. She said she had invested her savings and earnings in renovating the former farmhouse and had brought separate proceedings seeking a declaration that she owned a 50% interest. The judge said she had provided no evidence or documents to support that claim, and the proceedings had not progressed. The Official Assignee was registered as full owner; in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the judge treated him as the 100% owner for the application.

The judge considered the home’s importance to the wife and children, her non-involvement in the bankrupt’s loans and the substantial unpaid debts. She also noted that the bankrupt had not cooperated with the Official Assignee and that no offer had been made to buy the Official Assignee’s interest. The court concluded that the Court of Appeal’s decision in a separate case about jointly owned property did not prevent a sale under the Bankruptcy Act. It sanctioned the sale and postponed it for one year.

A second motion sought to prevent the bankrupt’s discharge pending investigation and to extend the bankruptcy period, potentially to the eighth or fifteenth anniversary of his adjudication. The Official Assignee alleged failures to provide financial information, disclose income and account for farm machinery previously listed as assets. The judge found a total failure to cooperate and said there was a clear case to postpone discharge. However, she did not decide whether to impose a longer extension. She adjourned that motion to 18 February 2019 and requested an affidavit update on the bankruptcy’s progress.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review