Brendan Hade, A Bankrupt; Sheila Hade, A Bankrupt

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Mark Sanfey
• Judgment Date: 14 July 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] IEHC 446
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [Bankruptcy No. 50502]

In the Matter of Brendan Hade, A Bankrupt

In the Matter of Sheila Hade, A Bankrupt

[2022] IEHC 446

[Bankruptcy No. 50502]

[Bankruptcy No. 50503]

THE HIGH COURT

BANKRUPTCY

Do Not Publish on Website

RULING of Mr. Justice Mark Sanfey delivered on the 14 ^th day of July, 2022 .

1 . On 27 ^th April, 2022, I gave judgment in respect of applications by Brendan Hade and Sheila Hade (‘the former bankrupts’ or ‘the applicants’) to show cause against the adjudication against each of them as bankrupt. This judgment is reported at [2022] IEHC 236.

2 . In the event, I refused the applications of the former bankrupts and gave the parties an opportunity to make written submissions in relation to consequential orders, including the costs of the matter. Both parties availed of this opportunity, and I have considered the written submissions made by both sides.

3 . The principles governing the costs of the matter are uncontroversial and are accurately summarised at paras. 2 to 4 of the respondent's written submissions. The general position is that costs should follow the event; that however is subject to the court's overall discretion having regard to the particular nature and circumstances of the case and the conduct of the proceedings, including the matters set out in s.169(1)(a) – (f) of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015.

4 . The applicants were unsuccessful in their applications. However, they argue in their written submissions regarding costs that “there was no previous case law exactly on the points being dealt with in the application…”; they argue that there was an error in the particulars appended to the bankruptcy summons. The applicants submit that “this is a factor that can be taken into account at the costs stage, and in terms of the reasonableness of the pursuit of the application”.

5 . It was also submitted that, given that the former bankrupts are both of advanced age and have been discharged from bankruptcy, any costs order made against them would “have the risk of being enforced personally”. It was submitted that the interests of justice “are overall best visited by the decision alone, and that any costs order made against the Hades would be unjust in all the circumstances”.

6 . I accept that the application was not straightforward, and in fact involved some novel points which required close examination in the court's judgment. However, I do not consider that these are reasons to refuse...