The High Court has dismissed Henry Dixon’s application to limit Revenue’s claim in his bankruptcy to €82,821.44, the amount relied on when Revenue petitioned to have him adjudicated bankrupt. The court did not make final orders on costs: it listed the matter for submissions on 10 July 2024.
Revenue’s amended proof of debt claims €472,154.96 as an unsecured debt. It includes amounts arising from three judgments: a Circuit Court judgment in 2002 and two High Court judgments in 2002 and 2009. Revenue had initially filed a proof claiming €784,501.60, then acknowledged that its interest calculation was incorrect and submitted an amended claim. The judgment records that the amended claim was accepted by the Official Assignee in July 2021.
Revenue had petitioned for bankruptcy on the basis of the 2009 judgment alone, for €82,821.44 including interest. It had previously registered judgment mortgages relating to the three judgments against land in County Mayo. Revenue later proposed abandoning its security and proving for the full debt as an unsecured creditor.
Dixon argued that Revenue should not be allowed to change its position after relying on the 2009 judgment for the bankruptcy petition. He said the change prejudiced him and affected his ability to challenge the 2002 debts before being made bankrupt. He also argued that Revenue’s change amounted to an abuse of process and that it was estopped from doing so. The judgment records that Dixon did not dispute that the debts under the judgments were owed and did not ask the court to decide whether the 2002 judgments were statute-barred.
Justice Mark Sanfey held that the bankruptcy adjudication process and the later process for proving debts are separate. Under the statutory scheme, the Official Assignee could consent to an amended proof of debt, including one that surrendered security. No time had been fixed for receipt of proofs, so the court held that Revenue did not need a court order to surrender its security in this case.
The judge rejected the abuse-of-process and estoppel arguments. He said the bankruptcy petition had openly relied on the 2009 judgment and did not amount to a commitment that Revenue would retain security for the 2002 judgments. Since adjudication, the Official Assignee—not Dixon—had responsibility for the bankruptcy estate and the handling of proofs of debt.
The court dismissed Dixon’s application. It directed that the matter return on 10 July for submissions about the orders to be made, including costs.