The High Court has dismissed an appeal by Nicola O’Neill against an order allowing Ballinrobe Credit Union Limited to attach agricultural scheme payments due to her from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. The court upheld the existing order; it did not make a new order in the appeal.
The dispute arose from a debt judgment obtained by the credit union in 2009 for €130,324.11, plus interest and costs, in respect of loans to O’Neill. The judgment said an €85,000 loan advanced in 2008, alongside an existing balance, was made on the basis that Department grants would be used for repayment. O’Neill formally assigned the grants to the credit union in February 2009, but later said the assignment had been withdrawn.
In September 2014, a County Registrar made a conditional garnishee order covering sums due or accruing to O’Neill under farming and land-use schemes. The order was made absolute in December 2014. A Circuit Court judge dismissed O’Neill’s appeal in March 2015, and she then appealed to the High Court.
O’Neill argued that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction because the original debt case had been brought in the High Court. She also said the County Registrar could make an absolute order only if the application was uncontested or she consented, and argued that future grants were not attachable debts until the Department determined entitlement. The credit union disputed that the application had been contested and said the jurisdiction objection had not been raised earlier.
The High Court judge said the jurisdiction objection came too late: O’Neill had acquiesced in the County Registrar and Circuit Court handling the matter. The judge added, as an alternative view, that a literal reading of section 22(7) of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961 appeared to give the Circuit Court power to grant garnishee orders. The judge said that view was obiter, meaning it was not necessary to decide the appeal.
On the grants, the judge accepted evidence from O’Neill’s husband that entitlement arose when grant criteria were met, before an application was submitted. The judge concluded that the payments were debts accruing from the Department, representing an existing obligation, and could therefore be attached.
The court also refused to use its discretion to set aside the order based on claimed insolvency and a proposed creditor arrangement. The insolvency process was at an early stage, with no arrangement developed and agreed by creditors. The judge also accepted the credit union’s evidence that grants formally assigned for repayment had later been used to repay another lender. The appeal was dismissed.