FORMER BILLIONAIRE Seán Quinn should have his Northern Ireland bankruptcy annulled because he did not make a full disclosure when he applied for it in November, it was claimed in the High Court in Belfast yesterday.

The Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (or IBRC – formerly Anglo Irish Bank), also claimed that Mr Quinn's "centre of main interests" was not in Co Fermanagh as he had said when making his ex parteapplication in November, but rather was in Co Cavan.

The now State-owned bank is seeking to have the bankruptcy annulled because it is adding an additional layer of legal costs to its dealings with Mr Quinn and his family, Gabriel Moss QC, for the bank, told the court.

He said Mr Quinn’s decision to seek bankruptcy in Northern Ireland was a form of “bankruptcy tourism”.

It had been stated on the news that Mr Quinn wanted to be “back in business in a year”.

“Whether that is something that would be in the public interest is not something the court has to decide,” Mr Moss said.

Under Northern Irish rules, Mr Quinn could emerge from his bankruptcy within a year, while, in the Republic, he might have to remain a bankrupt for up to 12 years.

However, Mr Moss told the court this was not the bank’s reason for taking its challenge.

Mr Quinn was present in court with his son-in-law Niall McPartland, but was not called to give evidence.

Earlier this month Mr Quinn was the subject of summary judgment in the Dublin courts for more than €2 billion which he owes the bank.

However, in his bankruptcy application last month, he said he had assets of less than £50,000.

Mr Moss told Mr Justice Donal Deeny that, under European law, the correct place for Mr Quinn to be declared a bankrupt was in the jurisdiction where he had his “centre of main interests”.

For individual debtors who were not professionals or who did not run their own businesses, the default position for their centre of main interests was their habitual residence.

Mr Quinn’s position under the law was separate from any business of which he was a director or an employee.

Mr Quinn lives in Ballyconnell, Co Cavan, though he is a native of Derrylin, Co Fermanagh, the location of the headquarters of his Quinn Group.

IBRC appointed a share receiver to the Quinn Group in April of this year and Mr Quinn resigned from his role with it.

Mr Moss said a person’s “centre of main interests” had to be ascertainable to third parties, such as creditors.

This was a critical matter, as Mr Quinn was alleging that his centre of main interests was an office in an industrial estate in Derrylin that he had leased in May of this year and from which he now claimed to run his affairs.

Mr Moss said Mr Quinn had stated in his sworn affidavit that he had deliberately hidden the fact that he was working out of these offices from IBRC, for reasons of privacy.

While Mr Quinn was perfectly entitled to do this, he could not then turn around and say it was his centre of main interests and that this was ascertainable by IBRC, whom he had described as his sole creditor.

Mr Moss read from a form filled in by Mr Quinn at the time he was making his ex partebankruptcy application in November and in which Mr Quinn "described himself on oath as unemployed".

He said Mr Quinn had also signed a document acknowledging that he might be committing a criminal offence if he provided false information in relation to his bankruptcy.

He had said he had not been self-employed in the past two years, and had not kept any books of account or used an accountant or a solicitor for such a business.

In relation to his assets, he had said he had £69.36 in an account in Co Fermanagh, €10,951 in an account with the Bank of Ireland in Cavan, and €137 in an account with Ulster Bank in Cavan.

He had said he had no leasehold property.

However, Mr Moss said, Mr Quinn now said, in his affidavit for the court, that he had a lease on the office in Derrylin and has exhibited what “purports to be a lease” that was dated May 2nd, 2011.

Either there was no lease at the time Mr Quinn signed his statement of affairs in November and the lease was “backdated”, or there was a lease and Mr Quinn had made a mistake, or there was a lease and Mr Quinn had made a deliberately false statement.

There was no explanation offered by Mr Quinn for this “very significant discrepancy” even though the issue was at the centre of the case he was making to the court.

“The most likely possibility seems to be that the lease is a back-dated document,” Mr Moss said. The hearing continues today.