The assertion that two senior officials overseeing the bankruptcy proceedings for Sean Dunne were never legitimately appointed has been made by the bankrupt developer in the High Court. Mr Dunne found himself bankrupt, as declared by Irish courts, in the wake of a 2013 petition by Ulster Bank. The bank asserted that he had failed to pay nearly €164 million in loan debts.
Following the bank’s petition to the court, Mr Dunne sought bankruptcy protection in Connecticut, USA, claiming $1 billion (€900 million) in debts while owning $55 million in assets. Consequently, a US bankruptcy trustee was chosen by a US court. Despite this, Mr Dunne’s Irish bankruptcy proceedings advanced, culminating in his bankruptcy declared by the Irish High Court in July 2013. His journey through bankruptcy in Ireland was supposed to conclude in 2016.
However, in 2018 the High Court prolonged Mr Dunne’s Irish bankruptcy by another 12 years, citing his “wilful and deliberate” failure to work alongside the then official administrator of his bankruptcy, Chris Lehane. Dunne’s non-compliance included keeping details about specific assets undeclared. Thus, the date of Mr Dunne’s exit from his Irish bankruptcy has been extended to 2028.
In the ongoing court proceedings, Mr Dunne, acting as his own legal representative, aims to prove that neither Michael Ian Larkin, the current Official Assignee in Bankruptcy, nor Mr Lehane, who retired from this position years ago, were legitimately appointed. He seeks court orders to verify that neither of them was validly appointed and requests they present their appointment documents.
Clark Hill LLP, the law firm handling the official assignee, along with Mr Larkin and Mr Lehane, are opposing parties in this case, represented by Lyndon MacCann SC and Una Nesdale BL. They dismiss all allegations of illegitimate appointment.
After hearing from both sides, Judge Rory Mulcahy, presiding over the High Court at Tuesday’s vacation sitting, postponed the case until a date in September.
In the courtroom, Mr Dunne articulated his desire to propose further motions, which included the inclusion of his underage children as part of his case as applicants. Furthermore, he expressed his interest in obtaining paperwork from a separate High Court insolvency case, suggesting that its contents would sustain and have relevance to his current legal proceedings.
Justice Mulcahy, sanctioning Mr Dunne’s request to propose these additional motions, stated it would be beneficial to first address these auxiliary matters before any further pursuit of the primary motion.
Mr Dunne agreed on postponing the matter, citing concerns stemming from his bankruptcy declaration in Ireland a decade ago and thereby accentuating the necessity for the earliest possible hearing of these motions.
Reacting to this, Mr MacCann stated his readiness to challenge the motion pertaining to the legitimacy of Mr Lehane’s and Mr Larkin’s OA appointments. His counsel noted that while Mr Dunne’s claims were not unanimously accepted, any triumph on his part would cause significant ramifications.
Concerning the other motions, counsel stated a need for additional time to formulate a response to the prospect of introducing more parties into the case. He contested that Mr Dunne’s plea for court documents from another lawsuit was unlikely to succeed.
It was also disclosed in court that the Attorney General’s office and the Justice Minister had been issued with the court papers. Ross Gorman BL, representing the Attorney and Minister, was present to provide any required assistance from his clients to the court.