Honniball v. Cunningham [2005] IEHC 91 (18 March 2005)

Honniball v. Cunningham [2005] IEHC 91 (18 March 2005)

The court found that the order for examination was properly made under O. 42, r. 36, the threshold for such an order is low, and the applicant did not object until after participating in the examination. No material non-disclosure was found that would have affected the order. The scope of the order is sufficiently defined by reference to debts and property, and no further limitation is warranted.

Citation
[2005] IEHC 91
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Clifford Honniball; Defendant/applicant: Brian Cunningham
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
18 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Motion to Set Aside Order for Examination of Debtor / Post Judgment, Application to Set Aside or Amend Execution Related Order
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Examination of Judgment Debtor, Ex Parte Applications, Discovery in Aid of Execution, Registration of Judgment Mortgage
Civil Procedure Enforcement of Judgments Examination of Judgment Debtor Ex Parte Applications Discovery in Aid of Execution Registration of Judgment Mortgage

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clifford Honniball

Plaintiff/respondent

Brian Cunningham

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Motion to Set Aside Order for Examination of Debtor / Post Judgment, Application to Set Aside or Amend Execution Related Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order for examination of the debtor should be set aside or amended due to alleged lack of disclosure and improper ex parte application
  2. 2 Whether the scope of the examination order should be limited

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the order for examination was properly made under O. 42, r. 36, the threshold for such an order is low, and the applicant did not object until after participating in the examination. No material non-disclosure was found that would have affected the order. The scope of the order is sufficiently defined by reference to debts and property, and no further limitation is warranted.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Application to set aside or amend the order for examination of the debtor is refused.