Bankruptcy law has always sought to strike a balance between the rights of creditors and debtors. In Ireland, bankruptcy and personal insolvency law has incurred seismic change over the past decade. Many of the legislative changes have been implemented from a policy basis of assisting the debtor. We look at recent developments, from the point of view of the petitioning creditor in any bankruptcy.

Automatic discharge from bankruptcy

Following the approach of the courts of England and Wales, the Supreme Court has stated unequivocally that it can no longer be said that the rules of equity are carved in stone, or are express immutable principles, unless changed by the Oireachtas.

In ACC Loan Management v Rickard, the defendant defaulted on a loan. ACC obtained judgment against him and then successfully applied to have a receiver appointed by way of equitable execution over payments which the defendant was due to receive from the Department of Agriculture under an EU farm payments scheme.

The appointment of a receiver by way of equitable execution has generally been considered a “remedy of last resort”[1] and, for over a hundred years, courts have expressed differing views as to when they could appoint such a receiver.

The default setting for the hearing of many contested debt recovery and security enforcement cases is by way of affidavit evidence, particularly in the High Court[1]. The creditor swears an affidavit setting out the reasons why it maintains the court should rule in its favour. Certain documents can be presented as exhibits that back up its case such as a contract.

It is now well documented that many owners’ management companies are facing the prospect of litigating to recover the cost of remedial works for defective developments or passing the cost onto the owners themselves. Given the passage of time since the construction of the developments and the insolvency of many of the developers and contractors involved in those projects following the financial crisis, management companies often face an uphill battle to recover damages.

In 2018 the Supreme Court delivered its much-awaited decision in the case of SPV OSUS Ltd v HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Ireland) Ltd & Ors where it confirmed that the assignment of a claim is unenforceable in Irish law unless the assignment is ancillary to a bona fide transaction or the assignee has a genuine commercial interest in the assignment.

In a recent judgement, the Supreme Court has upheld a High Court order for costs against a director of a number of companies (theCompanies) which were involved in proceedings with First Active plc (First Active), despite the fact that the director was not a party to the proceedings.

The Court took the view that the director (Mr Cunningham), who also owned or controlled the Companies, had funded the proceedings and should be held accountable for the costs.

Background to the order for costs

The Supreme Court has again urged the legislature to consider whether the outright prohibition on professional litigation funding and the assignment of bare causes of action continues to be warranted as the ever-increasing cost of litigation is putting access to the courts beyond the reach of many.

While the Court accepted that this is an area in need of careful and considered legislative reform, it warned that unless a real effort is made by the legislature to improve access to justice, it will have "no option" but to step in, "undesirable and all as unregulated change might be."

Many of the statistics reflecting trends in Irish economic activity have remained constant over the past few years. GDP has been rising, unemployment has been falling and inflation has remained fairly static. The recent publication of the Courts Service Annual Report 2017 confirms a similar consistent pattern in creditor litigation and enforcement, for the calendar year 2017.

Default judgments

Must the legal owner of securitised debt and related security disclose in proceedings it brings that it is a bare trustee for the beneficial owner? In addition, is that trustee obliged to join the beneficial owner as a party to those proceedings?