(Limerick-East): Deputy Shatter was in possession. He raised two points and I said we would come back with extra information. I propose to read the note I have into the record so that it will be available to Deputy Shatter subsequently.
The point raised by Deputy Shatter regarding the defect in section 9 and the corresponding section of the Bankruptcy Law (Amendment) Act, 1872 centres on the possibility of obtaining an order from the court restraining a debtor from leaving the jurisdiction at the time payment is demanded in view of the necessary time-lag between the demand and the issue of a debtor summons. At present under the rules a creditor cannot ask for a debtor summons earlier than two days after he has served particulars of demand. Under the Bill and following the advice of the committee the debtor is given four days in which to pay; otherwise a bankruptcy summons may be applied for. The arrest of a debtor on the basis that he may possibly leave the State will not be ordered as a matter of course. Section 7 of the Debtors Act, 1872, which abolished imprisonment for debt contained a power under certain circumstances allowing the court to arrest a defendant about to quit Ireland. In addition, the development of what is known as the Mareva injunction, that is, the granting by the court of an injunction restraining the debtor and those holding his assets from removing them from the jurisdiction, ensures that a plaintiff will not be deprived of the benefits of the judgment he is seeking. A common feature in all these cases including that of the debtor summons procedure is that proceedings have commenced and it is difficult to conceive of a situation where a court could restrain or arrest a debtor at the stage where he is simply being asked to pay a debt which might well be disputed.
Deputy Shatter also raised certain points in relation to the possibility of using this section in the case of a debtor who defaulted in maintenance payments. He pointed out that this question belonged to the area of matrimonial law and was not really a bankruptcy question. I agreed to look at the matter and I think that Deputy Shatter was correct in his conclusion. Section 9 and the section of the 1872 Act from which it is derived apply solely to a debtor in respect of whom a debtor summons has been issued. Such a summons will be issued only where the strict conditions of section 8 have been complied with, namely, there must be a debt of a specified amount, it must be a liquidated sum and notice requiring payment must have been served on the debtor. Section 9 provides for the arrest and committal of such a debtor where the court has grounds for believing that he is about to leave the jurisdiction. The summons must be served on him before or at the time of his arrest. That is just to clarify points raised the last day by Deputy Shatter.
