Michael McDaid

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Humphreys J.
• Judgment Date: 05 May 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] IEHC 293
• Date: 05 May 2021
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [Bankruptcy No. 6132]

In the Matter of Michael McDaid

In the Matter of Charles McDaid

[2021] IEHC 293

[Bankruptcy No. 6132]

[Bankruptcy No. 6133]

THE HIGH COURT

BANKRUPTCY

Bankruptcy – Adjudication – Recusal – Debtors seeking recusal – Whether there was a basis for recusal

Facts: Two bankruptcy petitions arose from a debt established in High Court proceedings. In each case, the bankruptcy summons issued on 15th July, 2019 and was served on 1st and 2nd August, 2019. The act of bankruptcy was failure to pay on foot of the bankruptcy summons. The creditor in each case was Mr McLaughlin. The bankruptcy amount was €605,222 arising on foot of a High Court judgment of 10th December, 2005 [Record No. 2004 No. 5848P] in the amount of €453,000 and a Certificate of Taxation dated 17th June, 2019 [Record No. 2004 No. 5848P] in the amount of €152,222. On 12th April, 2021, the High Court (Humphreys J) heard the matter, refused a recusal application and adjudicated each of the debtors, Messrs McDaid, bankrupt. Humphreys J took the opportunity to set out reasons.

Held by Humphreys J that, insofar as he could understand the recusal point, it seemed to be mainly derivative on a misconceived objection to a ruling involving the President in some previous adverse outing in the Court of Appeal. Humphreys J held that this was not a basis for recusal by anybody, let alone by him. Humphreys J noted that there was also some complaint about the ruling of 21st December, 2020, but all that happened at that point was that liberty to make a fairly technical amendment was allowed. Humphreys J presumed that if that was an incorrect decision it could be corrected elsewhere, but merely because a ruling is adverse to a party does not furnish a ground for recusal. As regards the merits of the petition, from the papers provided Humphreys J was satisfied that the necessary statutory criteria were met and that the debtors had not put up any legally cognisable ground to hold otherwise.

Humphreys J held that, for those reasons, the order made on 12th April 2021 in each case was: (i) to refuse the recusal application; and (ii) to adjudicate each debtor bankrupt.

Application refused.

JUDGMENT of Humphreys J. delivered on Wednesday the 5th day of May, 2021

1 These two bankruptcy petitions, arising from a debt established in High Court proceedings issued 17 years ago, were dealt with together and raise similar issues. In each case, the bankruptcy summons issued on 15th July, 2019 and was served on 1st and 2nd August, 2019. The act of bankruptcy was failure to pay on foot of the bankruptcy summons. The creditor in each case is Mr David McLaughlin of Illinois, USA. The bankruptcy amount is €605,222 arising on foot of a High Court Judgment of 10th December, 2005 [Record No. 2004 No. 5848P] in the amount of €453,000 and a Certificate of Taxation dated 17th June, 2019 [Record No. 2004 No. 5848P] in the amount of €152,222.

2 The affidavit of service of the summons was filed on 15th November, 2019. The petition was also filed on 15th November, 2019 and served on 6th December, 2019 and 9th December, 2019. An amended petition (in relation to Mr Charles McDaid) was served on 23rd December, 2020. The affidavit of service of the petition in each case was filed on 11th December, 2019 and (in the case of Mr Charles McDaid) on 12th January, 2021.

3 It may be worth noting that while there may have been some infelicities in the paperwork regarding service, the debtors did appear, thereby curing any such problem.

4 A brief procedural history of the petitions is as follows:

• (i). On 16th December, 2019 the petitions were adjourned to 27th January, 2020 on the application of counsel for the petitioning creditor.

• (ii). On 27th January, 2020 the petitions were adjourned to 17th February, 2020 on the application of counsel so that a supplemental affidavit could be filed.

• (iii). On 17th February, 2020 Mr Michael McDaid and counsel for the petitioner attended. The debtor said he would refuse to deal with counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner said the letter advising the debtor about the usual direction had been sent only the previous week. He suggested that the court might want to reiterate the direction. Pilkington J. explained the direction and the requirements of s. 14(2) of the Bankruptcy Act 1988 to the debtor and offered to adjourn the petition so that the debtor could consult a personal insolvency practitioner. The debtor said he didn't want an adjournment. Counsel then proceeded to open the papers, but having done so, applied to adjourn the petition so that he could deal with various queries. Pilkington J. asked the debtor what adjournment date would suit him. The debtor said he was not agreeing to anything. Pilkington J. adjourned...