McEnerney v Personal Insolvency Acts 2012 – 2021

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Ms Justice Nessa Cahill
• Judgment Date: 22 September 2026
• Neutral Citation: [2026] IEHC 639
• Docket Number: Record Number 2025/11 CA

In the Matter of Part 3, Chapter 4 of the Personal Insolvency Acts 2012–2021

And in Matter of Gemma McEnerney of Glasnevin, Dublin (‘A Debtor’)

And in the Matter of an Application Pursuant to Section 115A of the Personal Insolvency Acts 2012–2021

[2026] IEHC 639

Record Number 2025/11 CA

THE HIGH COURT

CIRCUIT APPEAL

Personal insolvency arrangement – Approval – Unfair prejudice – Applicant seeking the approval of a personal insolvency arrangement – Whether the personal insolvency arrangement was unfair to the bank

Facts: This was an application to the High Court under s. 115A(9) of the Personal Insolvency Act 2012-2021 for the approval of a personal insolvency arrangement which sought to resolve the indebtedness of the debtor, Ms McEnerney, and allow her to remain in her home. Allied Irish Bank plc (AIB), her only creditor for the purpose of the application, held security over her home and opposed the arrangement. The objection was that the personal insolvency arrangement (the PIA) was not affordable or sustainable for Ms McEnerney, including because of excessive reliance on unreliable rental income. It was also argued that the PIA was unfair to AIB owing to the delayed recovery, the interest rate proposed, and the risk of the arrangement failing. The primary topics that arose in the appeal were: (a) the affordability of the PIA when a debtor is left with insufficient resources to maintain the reasonable living expenses; (b) the sustainability of the PIA, which includes the question of contingencies, reliability of rental income and the mortgage term; (c) unfair prejudice; and (d) the Ulster Bank Ireland DAC proposal involving a voluntary sale and assistance with relocation in the amount of €15,000.

Held by Cahill J that the mandatory requirement of s. 99(2)(e) that the PIA must not require Ms McEnerney to make payments of such an amount that she would not be able to maintain a reasonable standard of living was satisfied in the very particular circumstances of this case. Based on the principle that the court cannot seek to predict or make assumptions about the future, and on the fact that the family had shown an ability to make the payments to date, Cahill J noted that the absence of a financial margin to deal with unforeseen events was found in Re Hurley and Re Phelan [2019] IEHC 523 not to render the arrangement unsustainable. Cahill J did not accept the argument that the PIA was not reasonably sustainable because of the absence of a financial surplus or cushion to deal with contingencies. In light of the available evidence, Cahill J did not see a sufficient basis for a concern that the rental income which the debtor had obtained since at least 2022 was not sustainable or reliable. Insofar as AIB relied on speculation that Ms McEnerney’s health may somehow affect the rentability of the room, Cahill J did not see that concern as being well-founded from the evidence before her. Cahill J did not regard the term of the mortgage or the age of the debtor at its conclusion to be a good ground not to approve the arrangement. Cahill J considered that the interest rate proposed in the PIA was not unfairly prejudicial to the interests of AIB in the very specific circumstances of this case. Cahill J considered it would not be appropriate to require a move to a new area which may create new difficulties and challenges for someone in her vulnerable medical condition.

Cahill J held that the requirements of s. 115A were met and that it was appropriate to allow the appeal, approve the PIA and grant the order under s. 115A(9) confirming the coming into effect of the arrangement.

Application granted.

JUDGMENT of Ms Justice Nessa Cahill delivered on 22 September 2026

Introduction	2
Background	2
The Personal Insolvency Arrangement	3
Evidence in this application	4
Relevant legislation	5
General principles	8
Issues for Determination	9
Affordability	10
Parties' positions	10
Findings on Affordability	16
Sustainability	18
Funds for Contingencies	18
Rental income	21
Mortgage term	23
Unfair Prejudice	24
Interest rates	24
Alternative of possession proceedings	27
The Ulster Bank Proposal	29
Conclusions	31

Introduction

1 This is an application under section 115A(9) of the Personal Insolvency Act 2012–2021 (“ the Act”) for the approval of a personal insolvency arrangement which seeks to resolve the indebtedness of Ms Gemma McEnerney (“ the Debtor”) and allow her to remain in her home.

2 Allied Irish Bank plc (“ AIB” or “ the Bank”), her only creditor for the purpose of this application, holds security over her home and opposes the arrangement. The objection is that the personal insolvency arrangement (“ the PIA” or “ the arrangement”) is not affordable or sustainable for Ms McEnerney, including because of excessive reliance on unreliable rental income. It is also argued that the PIA is unfair to AIB owing to the delayed recovery, the interest rate proposed, and the risk of the arrangement failing.

3 For the reasons given in this judgment, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to approve the arrangement. While the proposed mortgage terms will certainly leave Ms McEnerney with very limited available resources, I am of the view that this arrangement is appropriate and that it meets the requirements of the Act, while advancing the important objective of allowing Ms McEnerney to remain in her home.

Background

4 Ms McEnerney is an unmarried 60-year-old woman (57 years old at the date of the PIA). She owns and resides at 31 Stormanstown Road, Glasnevin in Dublin. She has no children, suffers from ill health and is unemployed.

5 According to the PIA, the current market value of her home is €295,000 and the mortgage balance then stood at €133,095.58. She has equity of €161,904.42 in her home. The PIA records her assets as a car valued at €2,000, cash of €897 and her home. She owes a sum of €1,732 to Dublin City Council, as well as the mortgage held with AIB. Prior to September 2024, the mortgage was held by Ulster Bank Ireland DAC (“ Ulster Bank”). Her assets exceed her liabilities by €142,525.47.

6 Her total monthly income is recorded as €2,076.33. In the prescribed financial statement prepared on 1 June 2023 (“ PFS”) this is broken down as €850 derived from income from boarders/lodgers and disability benefit from the State of €1,226.33.

7 Her set costs in the PIA are listed as €1,296.02, rent/mortgage as €55.46 and additional/special circumstances expenditure items are €153.22. Her special circumstances comprise life insurance of €28.49, car insurance of €54.73 and mortgage protection of €70. Her total reasonable living expenses are estimated at €1,504.70, leaving monies available for contribution in the amount of €571.63. The PFS contained a different figure of monthly expenditure of €1,677.11 before debt repayment, leaving a net balance of €399.22 for debt service and arrears. This does not include a figure for rent/mortgage. At the hearing it was said by counsel for the Practitioner that her household set costs are €1,383.95 plus special circumstance costs of €176.97.

8 A protective certificate was issued on 19 June 2023. At that time, the mortgage arrears were €2,836.94.

9 Dublin City Council was provided with a “ proof of debt” form on 23 June 2023 but failed to submit it within time. As only the Bank submitted the proof of debt on time, the application proceeded as a single creditor application. A notice pursuant to section 111A was sent to Ulster Bank on 9 August 2023. On 18 August 2023, Ulster Bank appointed the Practitioner as a proxy to vote against the proposal.

10 On 5 September 2023, the Practitioner issued a motion in the Circuit Court for an order under section 115A(9). Notice of that application was sent to Ulster Bank on 7 September 2023, pursuant to section 115A(3). On 21 September 2023, Ulster Bank filed a notice of objection which identifies seven grounds of objection:

• — There is no reasonable prospect that the Debtor will be able to comply with the PIA or that it will return her to solvency;

• — It would require repayments until the age of 75 (as of the date of filing), contrary to the Central Bank Guidelines on Sustainable Mortgage Arrears Solutions (“the CBI Guidelines”);

• — The repayment history of the Debtor does not support the PIA (noting no repayments being made in June or July 2023);

• — The Debtor would be required to forego a reasonable standard of living, with no allowance for contingencies;

• — The PIA is unfairly prejudicial to Ulster Bank, as bankruptcy would allow for immediate recovery and the proposed interest rate is an “uncompetitive fixed rate”;

• — The Practitioner's fees are excessive and disproportionate.

11 The objection that the Practitioner's fee was excessive and that the repayment history did not support the PIA were not pressed at the hearing.

12 The notice of objection also records that Ulster Bank had made a proposal under sections 98 and 102 of the Act for the voluntary surrender of the Debtor's home, and Ulster Bank paying a sum of €15,000 to assist with relocation costs (“ the Ulster Bank proposal”)

13 On 4 December 2024, an application was issued for the substitution of AIB in place of Ulster Bank in the proceedings. The global deed of transfer of 2 September 2024 was exhibited to the affidavit of Cliodna Walsh grounding that substitution application.

14 On 20 December 2024 the Circuit Court refused the order under section 115A. The Practitioner appealed to this Court.

The Personal Insolvency Arrangement

15 The proposal under the PIA is that the mortgage arrears would be capitalised, leaving a live mortgage balance of €133,095.58. The interest rate would be reduced from 4.9% (tracker) to 0.50% (Fixed) for the duration of the mortgage term, which term would be extended to 216 months (18 years)....