The Supreme Court has dismissed appeals by Richard Wood and Michael Wymes against a High Court refusal to dismiss bankruptcy summonses brought over legal costs owed to the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and Michael O’Connell.
The appeals concerned the High Court’s order of 6 May 2010, which refused the men’s applications to dismiss summonses issued in February 2010. The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered by Dunne J. on 9 March 2017, considered whether the appellants had shown a real and substantial issue, at least arguable and with some prospect of success, that required separate litigation. Under section 8(6)(b) of the Bankruptcy Act 1988, a summons must be dismissed if such an issue arises.
Wood argued that interest on the judgment debt had been calculated incorrectly because the six-year period included a leap year. The court said the approach to calculating interest in a period containing a leap year accorded with established practice and the earlier decision in Harrahill v. Kennedy. It found no error in the sum claimed and no issue on that ground requiring dismissal.
Wymes raised arguments about delay and prejudice, the recording of the costs judgment, the affidavit supporting the summonses, alleged improper purpose, res judicata and alleged bias by the High Court judge. The Supreme Court rejected them. It said delay alone did not make the costs order unenforceable and, if delay could support dismissal, it would have to give rise to prejudice. It also held that registration of the taxed costs was not necessary to obtain an execution order under the applicable court rules.
On the alleged collateral purpose, Wymes relied on discussions concerning Wood’s Cork lands and a possible public amenity project. The Supreme Court found no cogent evidence that the bankruptcy process was being used for an ulterior purpose, describing the claim as unsupported beyond speculation and suspicion. It also upheld the High Court’s treatment of the judgment mortgage argument and found no basis for the bias claim, noting that Wymes had been able to present his arguments.
The court concluded that none of the issues raised met the statutory threshold and dismissed both appeals. The decision left the refusal to dismiss the bankruptcy summonses in place; the judgment does not record a bankruptcy adjudication or order.