Lenders owed a combined €11 million by hospitality group Press Up co-founder Paddy McKillen jnr want to cross-examine the businessman under oath on his financial affairs in the High Court, as legal battles over his €27.7 million in total liabilities continue.
The Bottom Line
- Debt Scale: McKillen jnr faces €27.7 million in total liabilities, prompting an ongoing personal insolvency arrangement process.
- Creditor Pushback: Herbert Street Finance (€2.3 million owed) and Cabriz Finance (€8.7 million owed) are actively seeking to set aside his protective certificate over alleged disclosure gaps.
- Legal Costs: The High Court ordered McKillen jnr to pay legal costs to Herbert Street Finance following a failed bid to strike down a bankruptcy summons.
Creditors Demand Under-Oath Cross-Examination on Assets
Two separate lenders seeking recovery of a combined €11 million have moved to legally compel Paddy McKillen jnr to face questioning under oath regarding his assets and liabilities. The application unfolded before Judge Nessa Cahill in the High Court, where lawyers representing the creditors pressed for a rigorous examination of the debtor’s financial disclosures.
Herbert Street Finance, which is owed €2.3 million, and Cabriz Finance, holding an €8.7 million exposure, previously issued applications to set aside a protective certificate granted to McKillen jnr in September. That legal instrument shields the businessman from creditor enforcement actions until at least December. According to The Irish Times, the challenge stems from an alleged absence of detail in the financial schedules submitted during the insolvency application.
Representing Herbert Street Finance, barrister Bernard Dunleavy told the court that a revised statement of affairs will be required from the debtor. This necessity follows recent sworn evidence from insolvency practitioner Eugene McDarby. The update was triggered by an October judgment obtained by Herbert Street Finance for the €2.3 million debt, alongside fresh financial details surfaced by creditors.
McKillen jnr’s legal team mounted a strong defense against the examination request. Barrister Keith Farry submitted to the court that the creditors’ application was merely a show intended to embarrass his client publicly. Dunleavy countered that his client was not in the business of causing embarrassment, emphasizing that any data extracted during the cross-examination would ultimately serve the interests of all creditors.
High Court Costs Order Follows Failed Bankruptcy Defense
The cross-examination dispute runs parallel to separate bankruptcy proceedings initiated by Herbert Street Finance. In January, the lender issued a bankruptcy summons—the initial procedural step in formal insolvency—over the €2.3 million debt. McKillen jnr subsequently moved to set aside the summons, but Judge Liam Kennedy dismissed that application in August.
Returning to court, barrister Niall Ó hUiginn sought an order for his client’s legal costs following the successful defense of the set-aside bid.
Judge Kennedy awarded the costs of the set-aside application to Herbert Street Finance. However, the court noted that this specific financial award will be captured under the protective certificate currently shielding the Press Up co-founder. The substantive bankruptcy petition itself was adjourned to January.
Disputed Disclosures and the Path to the December Deadline
The core dispute centers on the accuracy and completeness of the prescribed financial statement submitted to secure the protective certificate. In written evidence filed in late October, McKillen jnr rejected allegations that he had failed to disclose necessary financial information, dismissing the claims as vitriolic, according to reporting by The Business Post.
Despite the debtor’s pushback, the legal friction continues to compound. In October, McKillen jnr formally consented to a judgment against him for the €2.3 million debt owed to Herbert Street Finance while concurrently pursuing his personal insolvency arrangement.
Judge Cahill directed both legal teams to file written submissions regarding the proposed cross-examination. The case was adjourned for two weeks, with the broader personal insolvency matter scheduled to return to the High Court list.
Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice.
