Murphy v The Personal Insolvency Acts 2012 to 2015 (Approved) [2020] IEHC 506 (12 October 2020)

Murphy v The Personal Insolvency Acts 2012 to 2015 (Approved) [2020] IEHC 506 (12 October 2020)

The debtor must establish that the property over which the debt is secured is his principal private residence, meaning he ordinarily resides there at the relevant time during the insolvency process. As the debtor did not reside in the property at any stage of the insolvency process, he does not satisfy the 'relevant debt' requirement and cannot avail of s.115A(9).

Citation
[2020] IEHC 506
Parties
Debtor: Bernard Murphy; Creditors: Creditors (unidentified)
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
12 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Personal Insolvency Arrangement Application Under S.115 A(9) Personal Insolvency Acts 2012 2015 / High Court Hearing on Confirmation of PIA
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Personal Insolvency Arrangement, Relevant Debt Definition, Principal Private Residence, Eligibility Criteria
Insolvency Law Property Law Personal Insolvency Arrangement Relevant Debt Definition Principal Private Residence Eligibility Criteria

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bernard Murphy

Debtor

Creditors (unidentified)

Creditors

Procedural Posture

Personal Insolvency Arrangement Application Under S.115 A(9) Personal Insolvency Acts 2012 2015 / High Court Hearing on Confirmation of PIA

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the debtor satisfy the 'relevant debt' requirement under s.115A(18) for a PIA application?
  2. 2 Is it necessary for the debtor to be ordinarily resident in the principal private residence at the time of the insolvency process?

Ratio Decidendi

The debtor must establish that the property over which the debt is secured is his principal private residence, meaning he ordinarily resides there at the relevant time during the insolvency process. As the debtor did not reside in the property at any stage of the insolvency process, he does not satisfy the 'relevant debt' requirement and cannot avail of s.115A(9).

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Order refusing the PIP’s application under s.115A(9)
  • Liberty to parties to furnish written submissions within 14 days regarding precise terms of orders, including costs