Re: Enright (a debtor) [2018] IEHC 314 (31 May 2018)

Re: Enright (a debtor) [2018] IEHC 314 (31 May 2018)

The inclusion of a narrative regarding the retention of the small plot in the second proposed PIA did not amount to an amendment under s.111A(3) but was a clarification or correction under s.111A(5, as the intention to retain the asset was apparent from the first proposal and no material change was made.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] IEHC 314
Parties
Debtor: Philip Enright; Interlocking Debtor: Patricia Enright; Creditor Agent: Capita Asset Services (Ireland) Limited; Creditor: ACC Loan Management DAC
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
31 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Personal Insolvency Arrangement, Statutory Interpretation, Modification Vs Amendment, Creditor Objection
Insolvency Personal Insolvency Personal Insolvency Arrangement Statutory Interpretation Modification Vs Amendment Creditor Objection

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philip Enright

Debtor

Patricia Enright

Interlocking Debtor

Capita Asset Services (Ireland) Limited

Creditor Agent

ACC Loan Management DAC

Creditor

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second proposed Personal Insolvency Arrangement (PIA) was an amendment under s.111A(3) or a modification under s.111A(5) of the Personal Insolvency Act 2012-2015
  2. 2 Whether the inclusion of a narrative regarding the retention of an unencumbered asset (small plot) constituted a material alteration

Ratio Decidendi

The inclusion of a narrative regarding the retention of the small plot in the second proposed PIA did not amount to an amendment under s.111A(3) but was a clarification or correction under s.111A(5, as the intention to retain the asset was apparent from the first proposal and no material change was made.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Circuit Judge's order set aside
  • Second proposed PIA treated as modification, not amendment