In mortgage arrears cases separated couples have caused difficulties, in particular where one spouse has washed their hands from dealing with any debt. A recent High Court ruling has provided clarity in this area in relation to the Personal Insolvency Acts 2012-2015 and a secured creditor's position in relation to the non-engaging spouse.

In SPV Optimal Osus Limited -v- HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Ireland) Limited & Ors the Court of Appeal rejected an appeal of a High Court decision dismissing proceedings as being frivolous and vexatious and bound to fail on the basis that the proceedings against the defendants were contrary to public policy, void and unenforceable as a matter of law since the assignment of the right to litigate third party claims amou

In the case of In Re Dunne (A Debtor) [2017] IEHC 59, High Court, Baker J, 6 February 2017 the High Court refused an application by debtors under Section 115A of the Personal Insolvency Acts 2012 to 2015 to overturn a secured creditor's (PTSB) objection to a Personal Insolvency Arrangement (PIA). The debtors had appealed from a Circuit Court decision upholding PTSB's objection.

Facts

Background

Any disposition of a company's property made after the commencement of its winding up, without the approval of the liquidator, is void. In a 2001 case (Re Industrial Services Company (Dublin) Ltd [2001] 2 I.R.118), the High Court held that the transfer by an account bank of monies from an in-credit account of a company in liquidation to third parties constituted a disposition and the bank could be liable to repay the value of such transfers despite not being aware of the winding up order for the Company.

In two recent decisions the High Court considered the provisions of Section 115A(9) of the Personal Insolvency Acts 2012 to 2015 (The Acts). The Section provides that a Court can give effect to a Personal Insolvency Arrangement (PIA) despite it having been rejected by creditors. It was designed to enable a qualifying debtor to retain their principal private residence in certain circumstances.

William Fry understands that, on 30 January 2017, having regard for the recent implementation of the Solvency II regime, EIOPA's Board of Supervisors adopted a decision (the "Decision") which will replace EIOPA's General Protocol relating to the collaboration of the insurance supervisory authorities of the Member States of the European Union (March 2008 Edition).

We understand that the Decision with replace the General Protocol as of 1 May 2017 (and will be available on EIOPA's website shortly).

In the interim, the General Protocol (March 2008 Edition) continues to apply.

Facts

In Leahy v Bailey & ors [2016] IEHC 592, High Court, Keane J, 28 October 2016, the liquidator sought a declaration of restriction against the three respondent directors pursuant to Section 819(1) of the Companies Act 2014.

Facts

In MB Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Ltd (In Liquidation) v Allied Irish Banks Plc [2016] IEHC 753, High Court, Barrett J, 21 December 2016, the Liquidator of the plaintiff company sought a declaration that certain transactions between 13 August 2013 and 4 October 2013 on a particular AIB account, constituted dispositions of the property of the plaintiff made after the commencement of its winding-up and thus wer

In Toomey Leasing Group Ltd v Sedgwick & Ors [2016] IECA 280, Court of Appeal, Hogan J, 13 October 2016,the first named respondent (Mr Sedgwick) appealed from a decision of the High Court that he, and the second respondent were personally liable to the applicant in the sum of €48,250 pursuant to Section 297A of the Companies Act 1963.