The High Court refused Brian and Mary Patricia O’Donnell’s application for financial information from the Official Assignee and other respondents, ruling that the information was not needed for them to complete their statements of affairs.
The O’Donnells were adjudicated bankrupt on 2 September 2013. Their appeals were ultimately dismissed by the Supreme Court on 28 February 2015. The High Court said neither had filed the statement of affairs required by section 19 of the Bankruptcy Act 1988.
They argued they could not complete the forms without information from the respondents. In a motion under section 61(7) of the Act, they sought detailed financial information from the Official Assignee and respondents, or alternatively from the respondents under contract and common law. The Official Assignee had asked Bank of Ireland to provide the requested information in July 2015.
The Official Assignee’s position was that the bankrupts could complete the forms to the best of their ability using what they had, including estimates. The court noted that both had prepared statements of affairs when petitioning for bankruptcy in London in 2012. It also cited Bank of Ireland’s prior letters setting out its claimed debt and credits from property realisations. The bank claimed €70,452,884.75 as due on 3 June 2015.
The judge said a statement of affairs records a bankrupt’s position at the date of adjudication and helps the Official Assignee investigate the estate and realise assets. It is not a substitute for creditors’ proofs of debt. Where a precise figure is unknown or disputed, a bankrupt may use an estimate or state the creditor’s claimed figure and indicate that it is disputed.
The court also noted that the O’Donnells had agreed with the Official Assignee to file statements within seven days of an interview. Although the interview took place in April 2014, neither statement had been filed.
The judge held that section 61 concerns the Official Assignee’s functions, including investigating creditor claims; it does not require the Official Assignee to complete a bankrupt’s statement or obtain third-party information for that purpose. The court refused the reliefs sought against the Official Assignee. Because the information was not necessary to complete the forms, it did not consider whether to grant relief against the other respondents and refused all reliefs sought against them as well. Questions about credits for secured property sales and the fourth respondent’s alleged breach of duty, expenses or fees were matters for the Official Assignee.