O’Flynn Rejects €1 Order Amid Debt Dispute

Michael O’Flynn, a prominent real estate developer from Cork, has taken his previous business associate’s personal insolvency arrangement (PIA) back to the High Court. O’Flynn declined to acknowledge a €1 postal order issued on behalf of John O’Driscoll, as per a report to Justice Alexander Owens on Monday.

The judge has scheduled a hearing for November to consider O’Flynn’s request to revise his opposition to O’Driscoll’s PIA and introduce new information. O’Flynn previously claimed that his neighbour O’Driscoll owed him over €750,000 and wasn’t insolvent when, in 2022, the Circuit Court had greenlighted his PIA—a framework designed to rehabilitate the financial capacity of those unable to settle their individual debts.

O’Driscoll, a resident of Ovens, County Cork, disputes the assertion that he was financially stable when his PIA was sanctioned. This PIA integrated a €339,000 debt, but stated O’Flynn’s debt as a conditional liability and attributed a mere value of €1 due to a lack of proven evidence during the PIA procedure.

It came to light during a previous High Court session that the supposed debt to O’Flynn originated from a €2.2 million personal guarantee that O’Driscoll made to the developer regarding debts of pub management Ezeon Entertainment Ltd, established by O’Driscoll.

Ronan O’Gara, a former player and rugby coach for Ireland, was a co-guarantor on the loan agreement and submitted a sworn statement in connection to the dispute, claiming that he was cheated by O’Driscoll. The Supreme Court ruled last November that O’Flynn did have the right to challenge the PIA in a court of law in spite of earlier failures to legitimise his debt. This effectively overruled a prior High Court verdict stating that O’Flynn wasn’t in a position to voice objections due to his inability to prove the debt at early stages of proceedings.

During her ruling this past May, Ms Justice Elizabth Dunne of the Supreme Court noted that had both parties applied a “reasonable” stance to several legal matters, the dispute between Mr O’Flynn and Alan McGee, Mr O’Driscoll’s personal insolvency practitioner (PIP), could have been averted. She commented on the “combative”, “confrontational”, and “unhelpful” manner in which Mr O’Flynn’s challenge to the PIA had been handled.

Barrister Keith Rooney, representing the PIP, informed Mr Justice Owens on Monday that attempts had been made to table amendments to Mr O’Flynn’s objection and bring forth new evidence. However, the counsel indicated that the objection perceived was “inadmissible” and the points provided were “generic” in nature, with no specific details of the proposed amendment being pencilled down.

Mr Rooney mentioned that Mr O’Flynn desires to bring up issues that emerged post the issuance of the protective certificate to Mr O’Driscoll. Earlier, Mr O’Flynn had requested a proclamation that his debt was €1 for which Mr Rooney confirmed to have forwarded a €1 postal order. Interestingly, the stamp on the said letter “was worth more than the postal order itself”. However, Mr O’Flynn appears to oscillate between whether his debt stands at one Euro, or otherwise, as per the counsel.

Meanwhile, Keith Farry, counsel for Mr O’Flynn, asserted that the PIP had insisted throughout the proceedings that Mr O’Flynn had not authenticated his debt and held the stand for two years that it was not paybable. Yet, following their defeat at the Supreme Court, they have now agreed to a €1 payment, considerably altering the scenario, the counsel noted. However, Mr O’Flynn has rejected the €1 payment, affirming that Mr O’Driscoll was not insolvent at the time PIA was pursued.

Nonetheless, the judge inserted himself at this point stating that the details would be attended to later while setting the November 4th date to review Mr O’Flynn’s request to revise his objection and present new evidence, as well as for the exchange of legal documents.

Condividi