Bankruptcy review summaries 2024-25

Review 1

Scenario

The debtor asked for a review of the trustee's decision not to grant his discharge. He claimed that the actions of the trustee had attributed to this decision, that he had fully cooperated with the trustee and provided all documentation that he had been able to get.

He asked that the decision be overturned, and his discharge granted. Representations were received from the trustee. The trustee confirmed that they had now received the missing documentation, and the debtors discharge could be granted.

Decision

The reviewing officer revoked the trustee’s original decision, and the debtors discharge was granted.

Review 2

Scenario

The debtor asked for a review of the AiB’s decision not to grant her discharge. The trustee recommended to AiB that the debtor should not be discharged because she hadn’t made all of her DCO payments, and they deemed this to be non-cooperation. AiB agreed and the debtors discharge was not granted.

In her review request, the debtor agreed that she hadn’t always been in a position to meet her monthly DCO obligations but denied that she had failed to cooperate with the trustee.

The reviewing officer noted that the trustee had quashed the debtors DCO several months before they had submitted their discharge report. In addition, AiB agreed that the DCO could be quashed.

Decision

The reviewing officer revoked AiB’s original decision, and the debtors discharge was granted.

Review 3

Scenario

The debtor asked for a review of the AiB’s decision not to grant her discharge. The trustee recommended to AiB that the debtor should not be discharged because she hadn’t made all of her DCO payments, and they deemed this to be non-cooperation.

AiB agreed and the debtors discharge was not granted. In her review request, the debtor agreed that she hadn’t always been in a position to meet her monthly DCO obligations but denied that she had failed to cooperate with the trustee.

The reviewing officer noted that the trustee had quashed the debtors DCO several months before they had submitted their discharge report. In addition, AiB agreed that the DCO could be quashed.

Decision

The reviewing officer revoked AIB's original decision, and the debtors discharge was granted.

Review 4

Scenario

The trustee submitted their discharge report to AiB recommending that the debtor should be discharged. AiB considered the report and agreed with the trustee.

A creditor asked for a review of this decision citing the following reasons. The trustee failed to notify the creditor that they were seeking their discharge.

The trustee failed to notify the creditor on the settlement of the bankruptcy. The trustee has incorrectly valued the property. The trustee has mismanaged the administration of the bankruptcy.

Decision

The reviewing officer considered that none of the points raised by the creditor were relevant to the discharge decision. They confirmed the trustee’s original decision, and the debtors discharge was granted.

Review 5

Scenario

The trustee submitted their discharge report recommending that the debtor should be discharged. A creditor asked for a review of that decision on the grounds that the debtor was in employment and a dividend should therefore be paid to creditors.

They also highlighted that the debtor had received a large inheritance prior to her bankruptcy.

Decision

The reviewing officer considered that none of the points raised by the creditor would prevent the debtor from being discharged. The CFT had been used to determine that the debtor was not in a position to pay a DCO.

The trustee would investigate the inheritance claims. They confirmed the trustee’s original decision, and the debtors discharge was granted.

Review 6

Scenario

The trustee submitted their discharge report recommending that the debtor should be discharged. A creditor disagreed stating that the trustee had mishandled the case administration and that an award shouldn’t have been granted.

Decision

The trustee submitted their discharge report recommending that the debtor should be discharged.

A creditor disagreed stating that the trustee had mishandled the case administration and that an award shouldn’t have been granted.

Review 7

Scenario

The trustee submitted their discharge report recommending that the debtor should not be discharged. They highlighted that the debtor had not returned their signed questionnaire, a current state of affairs form or provided copies of their bank statement to verify income and expenditure. 

The debtor claimed not to have any disposable income left once his expenses had all been paid.

Decision

The reviewing officer considered the points raised within the review but did not consider the debtors reason for discharge to be relevant. He was encouraged to engage with his trustee and provide them with the documents they required.

The original decision was confirmed, and the debtors discharge was not granted.

Review 8

Scenario

The trustee submitted their discharge report recommending that the debtor should be discharged. They highlighted that the debtor had fully cooperated with them throughout the term of his bankruptcy.

A creditor asked for a review of that decision on the basis that the debtor had allegedly falsely disclosed a property sale, had not disclosed previous court actions and outcomes, had an undisclosed employment, had fraudulently obtained directors loans and dividends, had an ongoing investigation with HMRC and had concealed assets.

Decision

The reviewing officer considered the points raised within the review and noted that the majority of the points raised had been answered previously by another department within the AiB. The creditor had used specific sections of an Act to support some of their statements within the other points raised.

It was unclear to the reviewing officer which Act the creditor was referring too as it didn’t cross reference with bankruptcy legislation. The reviewing officer considered that nothing had been presented to them that would prevent the debtor being discharged and emphasised that the debtors discharge did not prevent the trustee from carrying out future investigations with the full cooperation of the debtor.

The original decision was confirmed, and the debtors discharge was granted.

Review 9

Scenario

The creditors representative declared that discharge should not be granted. He referred to historic matters predating the sequestration by several years. 

He claimed that the debtors spending was excessive and that he had vehicles which should have been taken by the trustee and sold. He also claimed that the debtor had remarried while still being married to someone else.

Decision

The reviewing officer considered matters within the review. The trustee confirmed that they were very limited in what they could do with regards to the historic allegations.

They further confirmed that they had investigated the vehicles and were satisfied that no further action should be taken. The reviewing officer was satisfied that the trustee had used the CFT to calculate the DCO.

The other matter did not bear any relevance to the decision to grant the debtor’s discharge. The original decision was confirmed, and the debtors discharge was granted.

Review 10

Scenario

The trustee submitted their discharge report recommending that the debtor should not be discharged.

They highlighted that the debtor had not yet made himself available for interview, had not returned their signed questionnaire, a current state of affairs form, a tenancy agreement or provided copies of their wage slips or bank statements to verify income and expenditure.

The debtor claimed that he had fully cooperated with his trustee, and he should be discharged.

Decision

The reviewing officer considered the points raised within the review but did not consider that the debtor had been cooperative given that he hadn’t yet been interviewed or supplied requested documentation.

The original decision was confirmed, and the debtors discharge was not granted.

Review 11

Scenario

The trustee submitted their discharge report recommending that the debtor should not be discharged. They highlighted that the debtor had not cooperated with them, and they had been unable to set a DCO.

In addition, they said that the debtor had not complied with the statement of undertakings, had not made a full surrender of his estate and had not delivered all documents to the trustee.

The debtor acknowledged that he had not fully complied with his trustee. He did not acknowledge that he had already been made bankrupt.

Decision

The reviewing officer considered the points raised within the review but agreed that the debtor had not cooperated and should not have been discharged.

They encouraged the debtor to engage with his trustee to allow them to carry out their statutory functions.

Review 12

Scenario

A solicitor for the debtor asked for a review of the trustees’ decision not to grant his client her discharge. He claimed that his client had fully cooperated with her trustee and discharge should therefore be granted.

Decision

The reviewing officer received confirmation from the trustee that several matters remained outstanding including a failure to complete and return all statutory documentation and failure to supply evidence of her income and expenditure.

The original decision was confirmed, and the debtor was not discharged.