High Court determines that cause against the validity of an adjudication of bankruptcy on foot of a petition by the Revenue Commissioners was not shown, on the grounds that: (a) reliance could not be placed on an agreement unsupported by consideration; and (b) judgments not referred to in the Notice of Demand or Bankruptcy Summons can be taken into account in assessing whether or not the sum claimed in either of those documents is actually due and owing.
Bankruptcy Act 1988 – sum of €249,135.85 was due and owing to Revenue - judgment entered by Revenue in 2014 and 2015 – Revenue issued proceedings in the Circuit Court in 2016 – Revenue issued proceedings in the District Court – Judgment obtained in both courts – bankruptcy summons – service of bankruptcy summons – notice of petition to seek bankruptcy – adjudication of bankruptcy by High Court in September 2021 – bankrupt sought to show cause against the validity of the adjudication of bankruptcy – bankrupt argued debt relied upon was not a liquidated sum and was in dispute – bankrupt argued that the act of bankruptcy did not occur in circumstances where the sum demanded had been overstated – High Court found that agreement between bankrupt and Revenue was unsupported by consideration – legal principles regarding dispute debt – essential that the sum claimed in the Bankruptcy Summons must be due to by the debtor – Court satisfied that this requirement was met – Court satisfied that the provision of marginally inaccurate particulars was not stated in any of the authorities to be fatal to the validity of the Bankruptcy Summons – Court satisfied that judgments not referred to in the Notice of Demand or Bankruptcy Summons can be taken into account in assessing whether or not the sum claimed was actually due and owing – Court satisfied that no cause shown against the validity of the adjudication of bankruptcy.