The Court of Appeal has dismissed two appeals by Dominic Carney concerning his bankruptcy, affirming orders made by the High Court in October and November 2019. The appeals were heard together after Carney had already been discharged from bankruptcy; the court proceeded because bankruptcy can carry lasting consequences, including when seeking credit.
One appeal challenged the refusal of High Court judge Pilkington J. to recuse herself from hearing Carney’s application to show cause against the bankruptcy adjudication. Carney argued that her earlier decisions in the bankruptcy proceedings gave rise to objective bias. The Court of Appeal found that hearing both the adjudication and a later show-cause application did not, without something external to the process, create a reasonable apprehension of bias. It dismissed the recusal appeal.
The second appeal challenged the dismissal of Carney’s show-cause application, which sought to annul the adjudication made on 11 March 2019. The court said the application was not an appeal from the adjudication and could not be used to reopen arguments already rejected in earlier proceedings. It found the underlying €100,000 judgment debt was liquidated and exceeded the statutory threshold, and that the other relevant statutory criteria were met.
Carney disputed whether a director of Ennis Property Finance DAC had authority to take steps on its behalf and argued that the creditor’s petition did not comply with a court rule requiring specified signatures. The Court of Appeal held that the High Court had evidence on which it could find the director was authorised. It also said the signature rule was procedural and that the court could treat the petition as valid despite non-compliance. Carney had not shown prejudice or that it would be just and equitable to annul the adjudication.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the show-cause appeal and affirmed the High Court order. It also described both appeals as without merit and their pursuit as an abuse of process. The court awarded Ennis Property Finance its appeal costs, to be assessed if not agreed. The costs orders were not to be perfected for 14 days, allowing either party to seek a different costs order by written submission.