Businessman Kenn Joyce’s bankruptcy extended by three years amid ‘links’ to €700,000 Thai resort property

But the Official Assignee in Bankruptcy Michael, Ian Larkin, told the High Court that records showed Mr Joyce was the sole director of the company that owned the property and that it was being rented out for up to almost €1,500 a night.

A ruling by Mr Justice Mark Sanfey, following an application from Mr Larkin, extended the bankruptcy until May 2026.

The judge said Mr Joyce’s performance in his duty to cooperate with the Official Assignee had been “unacceptable” and it was difficult to avoid the conclusion he had “avoided any kind of comprehensive and truthful review of the facts in relation to the Thai property”.

While Mr Joyce had disclosed the existence of the property, Mr Larkin had been left to “ferret out” information and documentation indicating the businessman may still control or have an interest in the company owning it, the judge said.

Mr Joyce has acted as spokesman for the Alienated Children First group and was the founding chairman of the Ireland Fund of China, attending functions with figures such as former US president Bill Clinton.

Mr Joyce was adjudicated bankrupt in November 2021 follow a petition from creditor Emmet Kilduff.

Offence

Mr Justice Sanfey, in his ruling, noted Mr Joyce had continued to be a director of Gravity Electricity Limited, a company engaged in renewable energy research, despite requiring permission of the court to do so due to his status as a bankrupt.

The court heard Mr Joyce had told the Insolvency Service last August he had applied for permission to remain a director, but the judge said it was now accepted no such application was made.

Mr Justice Sanfey pointed out it was an offence under the Companies Act for an undischarged bankrupt to act as a director.

While several issues were raised by Mr Larkin in support of the application to extend Mr Joyce’s bankruptcy beyond the normal 12-month period, the judge said the “most substantial” one related to the Thai property.

In a statement of affairs, Mr Joyce listed a one-eighth share in a timeshare in Koh Samui as having an estimated value of €60,000. It was claimed in the statement that €80,000 was owed under a mortgage and that the property was derelict, unoccupied and not being rented.

However, the Official Assignee produced an email written by Mr Joyce in August 2013 stating the value was €700,000 at least, while internet searches last November indicated it was available for rent for between $775 (€722) and $1,605 (€1,495) a night.

In an email to the Official Assignee last April, Mr Joyce claimed the property was transferred to his ex-wife in 2012 but she was supposed to return it to him in 2019. He claimed he found it to be in a derelict state, with eight years of back taxes and government duties owing, and that he “got rid” of it for €10,000 in 2020.

But the judge said that in written submissions the Official Assignee stated Mr Joyce conceded he held the title deeds in December 2019, that he was the sole director of Ka-Nit Limited, the company which owned the property, and that he never had a mortgage on the property.

‘Errors’

Mr Larkin said Mr Joyce never provided documentation supporting any of his claims and explained a previous “conflicting response” as being “errors” made “under extreme duress” and due to “litigation fatigue”.

Mr Justice Sanfey said counsel for the Official Assignee suggested Mr Joyce remained in control of Ka-Nit Limited and thus the Thai property.

Mr Joyce had also claimed assets with a value of €141,890 had been seized from his home by his landlord and sought to “offset” this amount against his debts. However, Mr Justice Sanfey said values listed by Mr Joyce were “plucked from the air, and in many cases fanciful in the extreme”.

The judge cited a CD collection, valued by Mr Joyce at €30,000, a DVD collection given the same value, a “Metropolis court case file” valued at €20,000, and swings, a trampoline and a treehouse valued at €3,000.

Letters from the County Sheriff stated it did not seize anything from the property. Solicitors for the landlord said Mr Joyce was given the chance to remove any items he wished and attended the property in this regard. The judge said Mr Joyce did not accept this was the case.

---