In the legal wrangle between Michael O’Flynn, a land developer from Cork, and the personal insolvency practitioner for his ex-business associate, the Supreme Court judge, Justice Elizabeth Dunne, claimed that a pragmatic approach to legal issues by both parties could have precluded the entire dispute. It has been “extremely unfortunate,” said the Justice, that both individuals were hard stuck on Mr. O’Flynn questioning in court the personal insolvency arrangement (PIA) of John O’Driscoll. The resulting litigation from Mr. O’Flynn’s challenge of the PIA has manifested in an adversarial and unhelpful fashion that is regrettable, she stated.
Justice Dunne figuratively voiced her comments in a ruling from the five-judge Supreme Court, which decreed the High Court should address Mr. O’Flynn’s protest against the PIA. Mr. O’Flynn alleges his neighbour, Mr. O’Driscoll, owes him a sum of over €750,000. He asserts that Mr. O’Driscoll was not bankrupt when the Circuit Court confirmed his PIA, which is structured to restore the solvency of individuals who are unable to repay their personal liabilities. Mr. O’Driscoll, residing in Ovens, Co Cork, contests this claim, denying his solvency.
The High Court was informed that the purported debt originated from a €2.2 million personal guarantee provided by Mr. O’Flynn related to the liabilities of pub operator Ezeon Entertainment Ltd, a company Mr. O’Driscoll founded. Ronan O’Gara, an ex-Irish rugby player and current coach, co-signed the loan agreement and lodged an affidavit as part of the dispute claiming that he was duped by Mr O’Driscoll.
The argument from Mr O’Flynn to oppose PIA was rejected by the High court, along the same lines as the Circuit Court which heard the case initially. The reasons were Mr O’Flynn’s inability to “prove his debt” at an earlier phase of the process. The High court ratified the arrangement. However, the Supreme Court concluded last November that Mr O’Flynn had the right to contest the debt plan in court although he couldn’t “prove his debt” earlier. The issue of remitting the PIA for reconsideration considering his objection was then forwarded.
The primary insolvency practitioner for Mr O’Driscoll, Mr Alan McGee, proposed that the situation should be switched back to the High Court, whereas Mr O’Flynn suggested the lower Circuit Court to be more suitable. In a verdict delivered by Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne on behalf of a panel of five judges at the Supreme Court on a Wednesday, she declared that sole jurisdiction of the complications lies within the High Court and the Circuit Court’s actions have ended.
Additionally, Ms Dunne decided that both parties should bear their individual legal expenditures after the appeal. Typically, the defeated side should cover the legal expenses of the victorious party. However, Ms Dunne decided the insolvency practitioner would only be obligated to cover the other’s costs in insolvency proceedings under “extraordinary circumstances”. This particular issue did not qualify as “extraordinary”, she explained.
Ms Dunne questioned the necessity for Mr O’Driscoll’s insolvency practitioner to oppose Mr O’Flynn so strongly in his attempts to contest Mr O’Driscoll’s financial agreement. However, she was unable to find any grounds for Mr O’Flynn’s serious charge that the practitioner had ill intentions.
She asserted that despite Mr O’Flynn’s claims of misconduct, his evidence—a singular comment made offhandedly by the insolvency practitioner—barely amounts to a real concession. These types of unplanned responses aren’t usually legally binding, she clarified.
For cases where parties have become argumentative, it’s essential for their legal advisors to maintain their composure and treat their opposition and the court with respect, she emphasised. The judgement received unanimous endorsement from Chief Justice Donal O’Donnell, Ms Justice Iseult O’Malley, Mr Justice Gerard Hogan and Ms Justice Aileen Donnelly.