An objection by Cork property developer Michael O’Flynn to a personal insolvency arrangement (PIA) of his former business partner has returned to the High Court.
Mr O’Flynn has refused to accept a €1 postal order sent to him on behalf of John O’Driscoll, Mr Justice Alexander Owens was told on Monday.
The judge fixed a November date to hear Mr O’Flynn’s application to amend his objection to Mr O’Driscoll’s PIA, and to advance new evidence.
Mr O’Flynn previously claimed that Mr O’Driscoll, who is also his neighbour, owes him more than €750,000 and was not insolvent when the Circuit Court in 2022 approved his PIA, which is designed to return to solvency a person who cannot afford to repay their personal debts.
Mr O’Driscoll, from Ovens, Co Cork, denies he was solvent when the PIA was approved. That PIA involved debt of €339,000 but Mr O’Flynn’s debt was listed as a contingent liability and given a nominal value of €1. This was because he had not proved it during the PIA process.
The High Court was previously told the alleged debt to Mr O’Flynn arose from a €2.2 million personal guarantee given to the developer concerning liabilities of pub operator Ezeon Entertainment Ltd, which was established by Mr 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 alleging Mr O’Driscoll had “fleeced” him.
The Supreme Court ruled last November Mr O’Flynn had a right to contest the PIA in court despite earlier failing to “prove his debt”.
It overturned a High Court finding that Mr O’Flynn was not entitled to object because he had not proven his debt at an earlier stage of the process.
When directing last May that the objection should be determined by the High Court, the Supreme Court’s Ms Justice Elizabth Dunne remarked that all of the litigation between Mr O’Flynn and Alan McGee, the personal insolvency practitioner (PIP) acting for Mr O’Driscoll, could have been avoided if both sides had taken a “reasonable” approach to various legal issues.
The litigation arising out of Mr O’Flynn’s bid to oppose the PIA had been conducted in a “combative”, “confrontational” and “unhelpful” way, she said.
When the case came before Mr Justice Owens on Monday, he was told by barrister Keith Rooney, for the PIP, they had sought the proposed amendments to Mr O’Flynn’s objection and the new evidence to be adduced.
The PIP had received an “inadmissible” objection and “generic” points but did not have specific details of the proposed amendment, counsel said.
‘With airlines there’s always some volatility’
It appeared Mr O’Flynn wanted to raise matters that arose after the protective certificate was issued to Mr O’Driscoll, counsel added.
Mr O’Flynn, counsel said, had asked for an order that his debt was €1 and a €1 postal order had been sent to him, Mr Rooney said. The stamp on that letter “cost more than the postal order”.
Mr O’Flynn seems to want “to ride two horses, either the debt is one euro, or it is not”, counsel said.
Keith Farry, for Mr O’Flynn, said the PIP had written to his side for “the entirety” of the proceedings saying Mr O’Flynn had not proven his debt and it was maintained for two years that Mr O’Flynn could not be paid.
As soon as the PIP lost the Supreme Court appeal, they had said “here is a euro”, which “entirely changes” the position, counsel said.
Mr O’Flynn refused to accept the €1 and maintained Mr O’Driscoll was not insolvent when the PIA was sought, Mr Farry said.
At that point, the judge intervened, saying the detail was for another stage. He made directions for the exchange of legal documents and fixed November 4th to hear Mr O’Flynn’s application to amend his objection and adduce new evidence.
