In The Matter of BW (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application by the Defendant to show cause against the validity of a bankruptcy adjudication made on 30^th September 2021 by Judge Humphreys. The Defendant challenges the adjudication on the basis that the debt relied upon in the bankruptcy summons was not a liquidated sum and that the act of bankruptcy did not occur under circumstances where the sum demanded was accurate. The Defendant contends that certain judgments relied upon in the bankruptcy summons were overstated and included particulars from earlier proceedings that had been discharged. The Petitioner responded with affidavits, some of which were partially withdrawn following an application to cross-examine. The affidavits and submissions revolve around the accuracy and validity of the debts and judgments underlying the bankruptcy summons and petition. The procedural history includes exchanges of affidavits from both parties and involvement of the Collector General, who provided evidence relating to the sums owed and the timing of tax returns and payments. The court also reviews relevant judgments and statutory provisions applicable to the bankruptcy process.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the debt relied upon in the bankruptcy summons was a liquidated sum as required by section 11(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1988.
2. Whether the act of bankruptcy occurred in circumstances where the sum demanded in the bankruptcy summons and petition was overstated.
3. Whether judgments not specifically referred to in the bankruptcy summons or petition can be taken into account in assessing the amount due for the purpose of adjudication.
4. Whether the Defendant has shown cause against the validity of the adjudication of bankruptcy.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant's Arguments

• The debt claimed in the bankruptcy summons was not a liquidated sum because the amount was disputed and included overstated judgments.
• The inclusion of particulars in the bankruptcy summons related to earlier proceedings that had been discharged and acknowledged as erroneous by the Petitioner.
• The Petitioner relied retrospectively on judgments obtained after the bankruptcy summons, which the Defendant argues should not be considered.
• The Supreme Court decision in Murphy v. Bank of Ireland was erroneously applied, and subsequent judgments not particularised in the bankruptcy documents should not be considered.
• The Defendant contends that the judgment sums were overstated and that strict compliance with the Bankruptcy Act and Rules is required, citing Gladney v. Tobin.
• The Defendant disputes the existence of any binding agreement that could affect the bankruptcy summons and contends that the Petitioner miscalculated the sums due.

Petitioner's Arguments

• The Petitioner relies on multiple judgments, including those obtained after the bankruptcy summons, to establish the total debt due by the Defendant.
• The Petitioner asserts that the sum claimed in the bankruptcy summons, when considered alongside other judgments, was accurate and due.
• Following cross-examination, much of the petitioner's affidavit was withdrawn except for key paragraphs confirming reliance on additional judgments.
• The Petitioner denies any agreement that would affect the validity of the bankruptcy summons and asserts that the Defendant had no defence to the proceedings.
• The Petitioner relies on established case law, including Murphy v. Bank of Ireland and Gladney v. P.O'M, to support the validity of the bankruptcy summons despite minor overstatements.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Murphy v. Bank of Ireland [2014] IESC 37	Establishes that the sum claimed in a bankruptcy summons must be due by the debtor; allows consideration of subsequent judgments related to the same debt.	The court considered the Defendant's argument that this case was wrongly applied but found that the case supports the principle that sums due can include subsequent judgments related to the original debt.
Gladney v. Tobin [2020] IECA 49	Emphasizes strict compliance with bankruptcy legislation and regulations; affirms that the sum claimed must be accurate.	The court relied on this case to highlight the importance of accuracy in the particulars of debt and to support the Petitioner's position on the validity of the bankruptcy summons.
Gladney v. P.O'M [2015] IEHC 718	Confirms that judgments not referred to in the bankruptcy summons or notice of demand may be considered in assessing the sum due; supports validity of summons where overall debt exceeds sum claimed.	The court found this authority decisive in rejecting the Defendant's claim that the bankruptcy summons was invalid due to overstatement; it validated the inclusion of additional judgments in assessing the debt.
M.G. v. K.M. [2015] IEHC 43	Supports the principle that the bankruptcy summons is valid if the sum due exceeds the statutory threshold, even if particulars are not exhaustive.	Referenced as consistent with the approach in Gladney v. P.O'M and Murphy, reinforcing the court’s conclusion on validity.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by examining the Defendant's two primary grounds challenging the bankruptcy adjudication: the alleged absence of a liquidated sum and the overstating of the debt in the bankruptcy summons. The court reviewed the affidavits and evidence, including the Defendant’s acknowledgment that some particulars in the summons were erroneous but noting that these had been acknowledged by the Petitioner. The Petitioner’s affidavits, despite partial withdrawal, confirmed reliance on additional judgments obtained after the bankruptcy summons.

The court analyzed the applicable law, focusing on the requirement under the Bankruptcy Act 1988 that the sum claimed in the bankruptcy summons must be due and owing by the debtor. It emphasized the strict compliance required by the legislation, as outlined in the Gladney v. Tobin judgment. The court considered the Defendant’s argument that the Supreme Court decision in Murphy v. Bank of Ireland was misapplied but found no textual support for this interpretation.

The court gave significant weight to the decision in Gladney v. P.O'M, where it was held that judgments not expressly referred to in the bankruptcy summons may be considered in assessing the sum due. This authority directly addressed the Defendant's contention that the bankruptcy summons was invalid due to overstatement. The court found that the total debt due, including judgments not particularised in the summons, exceeded the amount claimed, thereby validating the summons.

In addressing the Defendant’s claim of an agreement with the Petitioner that might affect the validity of the summons, the court agreed with the earlier finding that no such agreement supported by consideration existed. The court noted that the Defendant did not meaningfully challenge this conclusion.

Overall, the court concluded that the Defendant had failed to show cause against the validity of the adjudication of bankruptcy. The court underscored that minor inaccuracies in particulars do not invalidate the summons if the sum claimed is due, and that the law permits consideration of additional judgments in calculating the debt.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final ruling is that the Defendant has not shown cause against the validity of the adjudication of bankruptcy.

This decision means that the bankruptcy adjudication against the Defendant stands and is effective. The court did not set any new precedent but reaffirmed existing authorities regarding the strict requirements for bankruptcy summonses and the inclusion of additional judgments in assessing the debt due. The ruling directly affects the parties by upholding the bankruptcy order and dismissing the Defendant’s challenge.