A recent High Court ruling which examined the practice of creditors entering into a "split mortgage" or warehousing agreement with debtors as part of a personal insolvency arrangement ("PIA") (pursuant to the Personal Insolvency Act 2012) is likely to result in banks reconsidering warehousing as a "go to" option when entering into PIAs with defaulting debtors.

Litigation & Dispute Resolution

A recent decision of Judge Susan Ryan in the Dublin Circuit Court is likely to have a substantial impact on debtors seeking to enter into a Personal Insolvency Arrangement (‘PIA’) with their creditors.

In line with a recent decision of Judge Susan Ryan in the Dublin Circuit Court (further details of which can be found here), the High Court has held that only a Personal Insolvency Practitioner (“PIP”) has standing to apply to the Circuit Court for a review of a creditor’s rejection of a Personal Insolvency Arrangement (“PIA”).

In Reilly & Personal Insolvency Acts 2012-2015 [2017] IEHC 558, Baker J, 5 October, 2017, the High Court held that applications to Court under Section 115A of the Personal Insolvency Acts 2012-2015 (the Acts), for approval of a Personal Insolvency Arrangement (PIA) despite its rejection by creditors, must be made by a Personal Insolvency Practitioner (PIP) and not by the Debtor themselves.

The High Court in Re: Callaghan (Unreported, High Court, Baker J., 22 May 2017) [2017] IEHC 325 has rejected a lender’s proposal to deal with outstanding mortgage debt on the principal private residence of a debtor.

The Debt

In the recent decision of Re JD (a debtor), the High Court upheld a debtor’s challenge to a lender’s decision to reject a Personal Insolvency Agreement (“PIA”) proposal.

Section 115A of the Personal Insolvency Acts 2012- 2015 (“the Acts”) provides a new mechanism by which a debtor may seek the Court’s approval of a PIA notwithstanding its rejection by creditors.

This case is particularly significant as:

The Irish High Court has recently ruled on the test for determining whether the transfer of a debt is a "true sale" or is by way of a charge. It has, helpfully, adopted the well-established test taken in a long line of English cases which emphasises that the legal form of the contract adopted by the parties will determine its nature, provided the contract is not a "sham".

The High Court has refused a challenge by a liquidator to an invoice discounting agreement entered into by the Company prior to liquidation.

The liquidator argued that the invoice discounting agreement was in fact a loan agreement under which the Bank took a charge over the Company’s book debts. If that was the case, then those funds would be funds in the liquidation and the Bank an unsecured creditor, because the loan agreement was not registered and therefore void as against the liquidator.

In a recent judgment the Irish High Court for the first time confirmed as “good law” in Ireland the approach taken by the English courts to the circumstances in which a transaction, documented as a sale of receivables, may be re-characterised as a secured loan. Invoice discounting, factoring and similar receivables financing products are important sources of working capital finance for SMEs and are increasingly a funding tool offered by alternative lenders.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Motor Insurers’ Bureau of Ireland (“MIBI”) is not liable to meet the cost of claims against former policyholders of the now defunct Setanta Insurance Company Limited (“Setanta”).

The judgment has far reaching implications for Irish motor insurers and policyholders.

Setanta, a Maltese registered insurance company which also operated in Ireland, went into liquidation on 30th April 2014 leaving an estimated 1,666 uninsured claims against Irish policyholders valued at around €93 million.