In McFeely v Official Assignee in Bankruptcy [2017] IECA 21, a judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Peart on 2nd February 2017, the Court of Appeal has reiterated the importance of maintaining the integrity of the bankruptcy process in Ireland, and in so doing has provided a useful overview of the law relating to the circumstances in which the Court will order an extension of the bankruptcy period under the Bankruptcy Act 1988 (as amended) (the “Act”).

Background

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.

The recent judgment in MB Refrigeration and Air-conditioning Limited (in liquidation) –v- Allied Irish Bank Plc [2016] has clarified what constitutes “notice” of the liquidation of a company for creditors and banks alike.

2016 has seen the Irish High Court address the status of third-party litigation funding, and has struck a blow to funders seeking to service the Irish market by declaring it unlawful.

The Court’s judgment was handed down in April in the case of Persona Digital Telephony Ltd v The Minister for Public Enterprise.

Trouble in the Emerald Isle

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.

The Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE) has published its Annual Report for 2015.

Key Developments from the Report: 

In AIB Mortgage Bank -v- O'Toole & anor [2016] IEHC 368 the High Court determined that a bank was not prevented from relying on a mortgage as security for all sums due by the defendants, despite issuing a redemption statement which omitted this fact.

In order to understand this case, it is necessary to set out the chronology of events:

Two recent judgments have brought further clarity in relation to the rights acquirers of loan portfolios to enforce against borrowers:

In April 2016, the Pensions Authority published prescribed guidance in relation to the Section 48A procedure under the Pensions Act 1990 (as amended) (the “Pensions Act”).

The High Court has reiterated that cross-examination will not generally be permitted on an interlocutory application, or where there is no conflict of fact on the affidavits.

In McCarthy v Murphy,^[1] the defendant mortgagor was not permitted to cross-examine the plaintiff (a receiver) or a bank employee who swore a supporting affidavit.

Background