The reason that we don't have definitive evidence for Ireland is that the new rules (reducing the bankruptcy term to 1 year and the payment order to 3 years) are new. The new rules came into effect on 29 January 2016 which is less than 3 months ago.
We won't have practical examples of the impositon/non-imposition of payment orders until the first bankrupts have completed their one year term and come out the other side discharged. So the earliest it will be possible to say what happens in practice will be around January/February 2017.
Having said that, there doesn't seem to be a mechanism whereby a payment agreement/order can be imposed on a former bankrupt if their income rises above RLEs after discharge. The closest examples currently come from England and Wales whereby an Income Payment Agreement/Income Payment Order has to be put in place during the 1 year bankruptcy term. If an IPA/IPO is not put in place during the 1 year bankruptcy term then there is no clawback on future income, and the former bankrupt can earn as much as possible without fear of it being claimed by the Official Receiver or a bankruptcy trustee.
We won't have practical examples of the impositon/non-imposition of payment orders until the first bankrupts have completed their one year term and come out the other side discharged. So the earliest it will be possible to say what happens in practice will be around January/February 2017.
Having said that, there doesn't seem to be a mechanism whereby a payment agreement/order can be imposed on a former bankrupt if their income rises above RLEs after discharge. The closest examples currently come from England and Wales whereby an Income Payment Agreement/Income Payment Order has to be put in place during the 1 year bankruptcy term. If an IPA/IPO is not put in place during the 1 year bankruptcy term then there is no clawback on future income, and the former bankrupt can earn as much as possible without fear of it being claimed by the Official Receiver or a bankruptcy trustee.