The Trim Circuit Court refused James and Grainne Farrell’s application for permission to seek new protective certificates before the statutory 12-month period had expired. The decision, given by Judge O’Malley Costello on 24 September 2020, addressed James Farrell’s application in detail, saying the same considerations broadly applied to both applicants.
The court considered whether his current insolvency arose from exceptional circumstances or factors substantially outside his control, and whether it would be just to allow a new personal insolvency proposal at that stage.
The judgment recounts that Farrell received a protective certificate in July 2019. His creditors rejected a personal insolvency arrangement in November 2019, and a subsequent application under section 115A was withdrawn in May 2020. During that process, the High Court ordered him to repay €61,957 to the liquidator of Business Mobile Security Services Ltd, after finding the company payments to him amounted to an unfair preference.
Farrell said the repayment obligation and other changes had altered his financial position. He also said the money had been used to pay third parties. The judge found, however, that Farrell knew of the liquidator’s claim during the earlier insolvency process and had not told his personal insolvency practitioner about it. The court also noted that the practitioner had bank statements showing the money entering Farrell’s personal account and that a creditor’s solicitor had raised concerns before the creditors’ meeting.
The judge concluded that the repayment obligation did not result from exceptional circumstances outside Farrell’s control. The circumstances relied on were known during the earlier process and were sufficiently related to it to mean there was no new or different insolvency of the kind required for the exceptional statutory relief. The judgment also said Farrell had not met the duties of full disclosure and cooperation under section 118 of the Personal Insolvency Act.
The court separately questioned whether it would be just to allow a fresh application. It noted delays between the affidavit grounding the application, filing the motion in August and service on the respondent’s solicitor in September, with a bankruptcy petition listed for 12 October 2020. The court said no explanation for the delay had been given beyond the submission that four days’ notice was required.
The application was refused. The judgment does not grant a new protective certificate or determine the listed bankruptcy petition.