The Court of Appeal has dismissed Noreen Hynes’s appeal against her adjudication as bankrupt, ruling that the statutory requirements for the order had been met. It also refused her request for a stay or an adjournment pending other proceedings or a possible property sale.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Pilkington on 9 June 2023, concerns only Ms Hynes. Her estranged spouse, Alan Hynes, did not appear at the hearing of his separate appeal, which was dismissed in an ex tempore judgment by Mr Justice Noonan.
The bankruptcy petition arose from a 2009 High Court judgment obtained by John and Bridget Atkinson against Ms Hynes and Mr Hynes for €200,000 plus costs. A conditional stay of that judgment expired after the required money was not lodged. In 2021, the court granted leave to issue a bankruptcy summons against Ms Hynes. A judge later refused her application to set it aside, and that decision was not appealed.
The petition sought €200,000, costs of €316.63 and accrued interest of €95,634.97, less €4,369.24 recovered by the Sheriff. The High Court adjudicated Ms Hynes bankrupt on 10 October 2022 after multiple adjournments. On appeal, she did not challenge the finding that the statutory requirements for adjudication had been met. The Court of Appeal said those essential proofs were satisfied and the adjudication had to stand.
Ms Hynes argued that more time could allow her to pay the debt. She referred to ongoing litigation involving Seamus Maguire & Co and said a notice of trial had been served, though the judgment records that the case had experienced difficulties and that her efforts to engage new solicitors appeared to be ongoing. She also said she owned a one-third interest in a property for which a sale had been agreed. The court noted that the Official Assignee’s role in the proposed sale had yet to be determined and that the Assignee’s consent would be relevant to a conveyance. Ms Hynes also raised access to data she said would assist the litigation and her potential complaint to the Data Protection Commissioner.
The court said the Official Assignee has a central role because the bankrupt’s property generally vests in the Assignee, subject to limited exceptions. The Assignee may pursue litigation or other matters considered capable of producing assets for the estate. The court found no exceptional circumstances to justify another stay, following earlier refusals, and said the appeal could not await the outcome of litigation begun in 2013.
The appeal was dismissed and the stay or adjournment application refused. The court’s provisional view was that the respondents should receive the costs of the appeal. Ms Hynes was given 14 days to file a written submission opposing that proposed costs order; the respondents would then have a similar period to respond. In default of submissions, the proposed order would be made.