Costs of enabling debtors to continue to reside in family home are disproportionately large

Personal insolvency – appeals from the Circuit Court – family home of the debtors is worth more that the debt due to the objecting creditor – objector is the only creditor – debtor rejected proposed arrangement – debtors are not insolvent – Circuit Court dismissed proposed arrangement – appealed to the High Court – debtor argues that the sale of the family home will satisfy the debt and allow them to acquire a new home – prejudiced by the arrangement – costs disproportionately high – relevant facts - proposed arrangements – objection of the debtor – response of the personal insolvency practitioner – reply of the debtor – evidence of debtor - application to adduce further evidence - meaning of the word “insolvent” - applicable principles in relation to insolvency – whether the debtors are insolvent – not in position to pay debts as they fell due – therefore insolvent pursuant to the legislation – whether the statutory requirements were satisfied – lack of appropriate evidence to show that alternatives were considered - on notice that this was an issue that required to be addressed – failed to address the concern that the costs of enabling the debtors to remain in their current home are disproportionately large - no sufficient basis to form the view that the terms of the proposed arrangement have been formulated in compliance with the statutory requirements – court not satisfied that the costs of enabling the debtors to continue to reside in the family home are not disproportionately large – plainly disproportionately large – whether there is a reasonable prospect that confirmation of the arrangement will enable the debtor to resolve his or her indebtedness without recourse to bankruptcy – real risk the debtors will become insolvent in the future – whether the debtor is reasonably likely to be able to comply with the terms of the proposed Arrangement - court cannot confirm a proposed arrangement unless it is satisfied that the arrangement is not unfairly prejudicial to the interests of any interested party –