The Supreme Court resolved a preliminary legal issue in favour of the Official Assignee in Bankruptcy, ruling that B.A. could not personally pursue a proposed challenge to earlier family-court decisions affecting his bankrupt estate.
The appeal did not decide whether those earlier decisions were correct. The question before the court was whether B.A., as a bankrupt, had legal standing to pursue litigation that could affect the value of his estate after the Official Assignee had declined to take it forward.
B.A. argued that an earlier foreign bankruptcy meant the Official Assignee had no interest in his property. He also claimed a personal right to challenge a High Court finding that he had concealed assets during discovery in the original matrimonial proceedings, and argued that he had been denied fair procedures. The Official Assignee maintained that any challenge affecting the estate was for the Assignee to decide.
In a judgment delivered on 9 November 2015, Mr Justice Charleton agreed with the reasoning in a separate judgment by Ms Justice Laffoy and added observations. He said that, under the Bankruptcy Act 1988, control of property and litigation affecting a bankrupt’s estate passes to the Official Assignee. A bankrupt who disagrees with the Assignee’s decision may ask the High Court to review it.
The court recognised limited exceptions for matters personal to the bankrupt, including claims for personal injury or defamation and proceedings that could lead to personal punishment. It held that B.A.’s proposed challenge concerned the financial effect of earlier family proceedings on the estate, so those exceptions did not apply.
The judgment also rejected B.A.’s fair-procedures argument. It noted that he had been represented in the family proceedings and that the High Court order recorded oral evidence and other material being considered. The court said the argument failed in the circumstances.
The Supreme Court said the foreign bankruptcy did not remove the Irish Official Assignee’s authority under Irish law, and that the effect of the US bankruptcy on the estate’s division was not before it. It concluded that nothing raised on appeal showed a realistic prospect of benefit to the estate from the proposed challenge. The preliminary issue was therefore resolved in the Official Assignee’s favour; the court did not itself reopen or overturn the family judgments.