Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Personal insolvency practitioner personally liable for some costs of creditor on appeal
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court orders that a personal insolvency practitioner (PIP) personally pay the sum of €6,000 to the principal creditor in lieu of costs, where the PIP had applied for approval of a personal insolvency arrangement without personally verifying the income of a debtor, and pursued an appeal in face of the countervailing facts, on the grounds that: (a) the court had jurisdiction to make an order for costs against a PIP in person; (b) this was a case in which the conduct of the PIP justified such an order; but (c) as it was the first case of its kind, the PIP in question should only be required to pay a proportion of the costs incurred by the principal creditor.
Personal insolvency - objecting creditor - application for costs against personal insolvency practitioner (PIP) - unsuccessful appeal by PIP from order of Circuit Court - refusal of application to approve personal insolvency arrangement - s. 115A (9) of the Personal Insolvency Act, 2012 - whether PIP carried out adequate due diligence concerning income of debtor - application moved on a false premise - income less than that alleged in proposed arrangement - lack of independence - objection by mortgagee of family home - disclosure sought by mortgagee of information concerning debtor and his wife - averment that PIP had verified income of debtor - reliance on statements from accountant - s. 115A (14) - costs jurisdiction - whether costs could be awarded against a PIP - representation that PIP had verified income of debtor - reliance by PIP on debtor's own statement - swearing of affidavit - pursuit of appeal in face of evidence.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
