Carney vs Bank of Scotland – Court of Appeal – [2024] IECA 309 – Case Summary

Background of the Case

The Court of Appeal of Ireland recently delivered a decision in the case of Carney vs Bank of Scotland, where the plaintiff, Dominic Carney, sought a review of a previous judgment on constitutional grounds. The original judgment, handed down on 3rd October 2024, had dismissed Carney's appeal concerning the interpretation of section 85(3A) of the Bankruptcy Act 1988.

Legal Grounds for Review

Carney's application for review was based on Practice Direction 14, which allows for motions seeking a review of a judgment on constitutional grounds. Article 34.4.3 of the Constitution states that the decision of the Court of Appeal is final and conclusive unless it meets certain criteria for appeal to the Supreme Court. The court emphasised that the jurisdiction to review its decisions is wholly exceptional and requires a significant onus on the applicant to prove a denial of justice.

Arguments Presented

Carney argued that upon his automatic discharge from bankruptcy on 12th March 2020, his unrealised estate should have re-vested in him three years after the date of adjudication, as per section 85(3A). He contended that this provision should apply to his entire unrealised estate, not just his family home. He further argued that the Official Assignee should not retain control over a bankrupt's estate indefinitely, which he believed contradicted the intended 'second chance' provided by a discharge from bankruptcy.

Court's Analysis

The court analysed the legislative history of the Bankruptcy Act 1988, noting amendments that reduced the bankruptcy period and altered the re-vesting provisions. It concluded that the current legislation clearly allows the Official Assignee to retain unrealised property for the benefit of creditors, except for the family home under section 85(3A). The court found no basis for Carney's interpretation that these amendments were transitional.

Decision on the Application

The court determined that Carney's application did not meet the necessary criteria for an exceptional review. It found no evidence of a denial of constitutional justice or any error that would justify reopening the case. The court reiterated that dissatisfaction with a judgment's outcome does not warrant the exercise of this exceptional jurisdiction.

Implications of the Ruling

This ruling reinforces the stringent requirements for reviewing final decisions of the Court of Appeal. It underscores the importance of demonstrating a fundamental issue concerning a denial of justice, beyond mere disagreement with the court's interpretation of the law.

Conclusion

The court's refusal to grant leave for Carney's application highlights the challenges faced by litigants seeking to challenge final appellate decisions on constitutional grounds. This case serves as a reminder of the limited scope for such reviews under Irish law.

Learn More

To explore key topics in bankruptcy law, including the rights of bankrupt individuals and the role of the Official Assignee, see BeCivil's guide to UK Employment Law.