Denis Ryan in his Capacity as Deputy Official Assignee in Bankruptcy v Michael Grimes (A Bankrupt)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys
• Judgment Date: 25 February 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] IEHC 77
• Date: 25 February 2021
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [Bankruptcy Record No. 5041]

In the Matter of Sections 85 and 85A of the Bankruptcy Act 1988 as Amended

Between

Denis Ryan in his Capacity as Deputy Official Assignee in Bankruptcy

Applicant

and

Michael Grimes (A Bankrupt)

Respondent

In the Matter of Sections 85 and 85A of the Bankruptcy Act 1988 as Amended

Between

Denis Ryan in his Capacity as Deputy Official Assignee in Bankruptcy

Applicant

and

Carmel Grimes (A Bankrupt)

Respondent

[2021] IEHC 77

[Bankruptcy Record No. 5041]

[Bankruptcy Record No. 5042]

THE HIGH COURT

BANKRUPTCY

Bankruptcy – Extension – Non-cooperation – Applicant seeking to extend the period of bankruptcy – Whether there had been non-cooperation by the respondents

Facts: The applicant, Mr Ryan (the Official Assignee), brought two applications concerning the respondents, Mr and Mrs Grimes (the bankrupts): (i) firstly, an application substituting the name of the applicant to reflect the appointment of a new Official Assignee under O. 17, r. 4 RSC – the High Court (Humphreys J) granted those applications ex parte on the basis of the affidavit in each case filed on behalf of the Official Assignee; (ii) secondly, an application to extend the period of bankruptcy in each case for five years due to the non-cooperation of the bankrupts – on 19th October, 2020, O’Connor J granted an interim extension of the bankruptcy in each case pending determination of these applications. Having heard the matter on 25th January, 2020, Humphreys J announced the order being made and indicated that reasons would be given later.

Held by Humphreys J that in this case there had been non-cooperation by both bankrupts, a failure to deliver a statement of affairs and complete non-disclosure contrary to their legal obligations. Humphreys J found that a five-year period of extension seemed appropriate if not relatively modest having regard to a similar period in the case of a similar failure by a bankrupt to co-operate as determined by Costello J in In re Gaynor [2017] IEHC 27. Humphreys J did not have to consider whether a longer extension would have been warranted because five years was what was sought by the Official Assignee.

Accordingly, the order made on 25th January, 2021 in each case was: (i) Humphreys J granted the ex parte application to change the name of the applicant in the title of the proceedings to reflect the appointment of a new Official Assignee with no order as to costs; (ii) Humphreys J ordered pursuant to s. 85A(4) of the Bankruptcy Act 1988 that the automatic discharge of the bankrupts would be barred and that their bankruptcy period would be extended to 5th November, 2025 being six years from the date of adjudication (that is the statutory one year plus an extended five-year period); and (iii) costs of the motions to extend the bankruptcy were ordered to be costs in the bankruptcy.

Application granted.

Judgment of Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys delivered on Thursday the 25th day of February, 2021

Applications before the court

1 The applications here concern two bankrupts, Michael Grimes and Carmel Grimes, who are husband and wife. The Official Assignee brought two applications in each case:

• (i). Firstly, an application substituting the name of the applicant to reflect the appointment of a new Official Assignee under O. 17, r. 4 RSC. I granted those applications ex parte on the basis of the affidavit in each case filed on behalf of the Official Assignee.

• (ii). Secondly, an application to extend the period of bankruptcy in each case for five years due to the non-cooperation of the bankrupts. On 19th October, 2020 O'Connor J. granted an interim extension of the bankruptcy in each case pending determination of these applications.

2 I wish to record my gratitude to Mr. Rudi Neuman B.L. for the Official Assignee for his assistance. The bankrupts were called, but there was no appearance from either of them. No correspondence was received from the second respondent, but an email was received from the first respondent purportedly on behalf of himself and his wife. Having heard the matter on 25th January, 2020, I announced the order being made and indicated that reasons would be given later.

Applications made by the first respondent by email

3 In a lengthy email submitted by the first respondent, he set out five applications that he wished to make:

• (i). He sought an adjournment of the...