Drew v Personal Insolvency Acts 2012-2015 (Approved) [2021] IEHC 710 (15 November 2021)

Drew v Personal Insolvency Acts 2012-2015 (Approved) [2021] IEHC 710 (15 November 2021)

The PIP failed to establish, by appropriate evidence, that as of the date of the s.115A(9) application, the debtor ordinarily resided in the Cashel property such that the mortgage over it constituted a relevant debt. Without a relevant debt, the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application under s.115A(9).

Citation
[2021] IEHC 710
Parties
Debtor: Daniel Drew; Personal Insolvency Practitioner (pip) / Applicant: John O’Callaghan; Objecting Creditor / Respondent: Everyday Finance DAC
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
15 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Application Under Personal Insolvency Acts 2012 2015, S.115 A(9) / Judgment on Application to Confirm Coming Into Effect of Personal Insolvency Arrangement (pia) After Creditor Rejection
Outcome
Application refused for lack of jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Personal Insolvency Arrangement, Relevant Debt, Principal Private Residence, Jurisdictional Requirements, Section 115 a Applications
Insolvency Law Banking and Finance Law Personal Insolvency Arrangement Relevant Debt Principal Private Residence Jurisdictional Requirements Section 115 a Applications

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 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Drew

Debtor

John O’Callaghan

Personal Insolvency Practitioner (pip) / Applicant

Everyday Finance DAC

Objecting Creditor / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Personal Insolvency Acts 2012 2015, S.115 A(9) / Judgment on Application to Confirm Coming Into Effect of Personal Insolvency Arrangement (pia) After Creditor Rejection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the debtor had a 'relevant debt' as defined by s.115A(18) of the Personal Insolvency Acts 2012-2015
  2. 2 Whether the means of the debtor had been fully brought to bear on the PIA as required by s.115A(9)(b)(ii)

Ratio Decidendi

The PIP failed to establish, by appropriate evidence, that as of the date of the s.115A(9) application, the debtor ordinarily resided in the Cashel property such that the mortgage over it constituted a relevant debt. Without a relevant debt, the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application under s.115A(9).

Court Disposition

Application refused for lack of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Order refusing the PIP’s application under s.115A(9).
  • Matter to be listed in the first personal insolvency list after delivery of judgment for submissions as to appropriate orders.