Irish Cement Limited v Murphy (Donal)

[1]������� The preliminary issue for determination is whether, in insolvency proceedings, there is an entitlement to apply for leave to appeal from a decision of the Bankruptcy Master to the Court of Appeal.� Ms Danes QC and Mr McCausland appeared for the appellant and Mr Acheson for the respondent.

[4]������� The respondent sought an Individual Voluntary Arrangement (�IVA�) with his creditors. At a meeting of the respondent�s creditors on 10 December 2014 the Chairman rejected the appellant�s claim on the basis that there was insufficient evidence that the appellant was a creditor of the respondent.� Thus the appellant did not have a vote at the creditor�s meeting and the proposed IVA was approved.

[6]������� The appellant contends that the Chairman took the wrong approach at the creditors� meeting as he should have admitted the debt and noted the respondent�s objection rather than seeking sufficient proof of debt, as was stated in his letter to be the basis of his decision.

[7]������� The appellant further contends that the Bankruptcy Master took the wrong approach as she should have determined whether there was sufficient proof of debt rather than, according to the respondent, in effect deferring to the decision of the Chairman of the creditors� meeting.� A solicitor�s note of proceedings before the Bankruptcy Master records the Master as stating that the Chairman was an experienced insolvency practitioner and his affidavit made clear that he was in no doubt as to his decision to reject the claim.

[8]������� The approach of the Chairman at a creditors� meeting to a disputed debt was outlined in Official Receiver v Thompson [2002] NICh 10 at paragraph [10].� The creditors� meeting is not a place to go into lengthy debates as to the exact status of a debt and the Chairman of the meeting should look at the claim and either admit the debt or reject it and if there was a doubt he should admit the debt but mark it as objected to.�