Developer Michael O'Flynn back in court over neighbour's personal insolvency arrangement
High Court Reporter
Property developer Michael O’Flynn is back before the High Court for another round in his objection to the personal insolvency arrangement (PIA) of his former business partner and neighbour John O’Driscoll.
The developer claims that O’Driscoll from Ovens, Co Cork owed him in the region of €950,000 and was allegedly not insolvent when he sought and was granted a PIA by the courts.
The developer is objecting to the O’ Driscoll PIA coming into effect and wants the Circuit Court decision to be set aside.
The High Court previously heard the alleged debt arose from a €2.2 million personal guarantee given to O’Flynn concerning liabilities of pub operator Ezeon Entertainment Ltd, which was established by O’Driscoll.
Rugby coach and former Irish player Ronan O’Gara was a co-guarantor on the loan agreement and filed an affidavit as part of the dispute.
In the PIA, O’Flynn’s debt was listed as a contingent liability and given a nominal value of €1, because he had not proved it during the PIA process.
In an affidavit to the High Court, O’Flynn said he was deeply upset by the actions of O’Driscoll in the matter.
“I have been a loyal and supporting family friend for years. I have no vendetta or wish to have a personal dispute with O’Driscoll. In my view, there was a lack of disclosure by the debtor to the PIP and thus a lack of verification and investigation of figures. With the issues that have now arisen, there is an issue of trust and faith in the personal insolvency system,” he added.
The case has come before the High Court by way of an appeal against the granting of a PIA to John O'Driscoll, who is a brother of former Irish rugby international Mick O’Driscoll.
Counsel for Michael O’Flynn, Martin Hayden, told the court that it is their case that at the time the debtor, O’Driscoll, was not insolvent. Counsel claimed it was “a contrivance, a pre-pack PIA.”
It is contended by the O’Flynn side that O Driscoll did not meet the eligibility criteria in relation to a PIA and was allegedly cash flow and balance sheet solvent.
In his affidavit, O’Flynn, who was not present in court, said he wished to make clear that he was not paid €1 or any sum during the PIA, and he said he has not accepted or cashed any postal order.
He said he was of the view that the setting aside of the O’Driscoll PIA would allow the parties to get to the bottom of the correct figures, and it appeared to him that there was alleged material non-disclosure and the Ezeon debt was an excluded debt.
In the High Court on Tuesday, Counsel for the Personal Insolvency Practitioner in the O’Driscoll case, Keith Rooney, contended that if O’Flynn had put in his proof of debt in the insolvency process, the four years before the courts in the case, including all the way to the Supreme Court, could have been avoided.
“He did not do that for reasons best known to himself,” Counsel said. He added that O Flynn’s position is of his own making.
Two years ago, a five-judge Supreme Court held that O’Flynn’s objection to the PIA should be heard by the High Court.
Previously, the High Court rejected O’Flynn’s attempt to object to the PIA finding that he lacked standing due to having failed to “prove his debt” at an earlier stage of the process.
However, the Supreme Court ruled in November 2023 that O’Flynn obtained a right to contest in court the debt plan despite earlier failing to “prove his debt” and the case was remitted back to the High Court.
Judge Nessa Cahill reserved her decision.
