The Court of Appeal has dismissed Damien Stapleton’s appeal against an order requiring him to disclose financial records from 2005 onward and attend for cross-examination about his property and means. The order was made to assist enforcement of a judgment debt owed to National Asset Loan Management DAC (NALM).
The court said the debt was more than €7 million. Uncontradicted evidence put its value at about €7.53 million on 31 March 2022, with the judgment stating it had increased since then. Stapleton had made no payment on the judgment. Enforcement had recovered €2,600 from the sale of a Volkswagen Golf.
The underlying High Court judgment, made in March 2018, ordered Stapleton to pay €6,385,044.64, plus interest and costs. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal against that judgment in 2020. The current appeal concerned a later High Court order for examination and document disclosure, not the original liability judgment.
The disclosure order covers documents relating to what happened to about €29 million Stapleton received from a 2005 land sale in Gorey, County Wexford; later dealings in property and financial assets; bank statements; and capital gains tax returns for 2006 to 2018. Transactions above €10,000 are covered. Stapleton had sought to limit disclosure to transactions after 19 October 2012 and those exceeding €100,000.
NALM relied on earlier financial disclosures that, it said, did not account for the sale proceeds or explain later asset disposals. The court noted that a 2011 breakdown of the money’s use was unsupported by vouchers and that Stapleton had not challenged NALM’s evidence about gaps in the disclosures. Those were concerns advanced by NALM and considered by the court, not findings that assets had been concealed or remained available.
Stapleton argued that the order was disproportionate and oppressive. He also referred to health issues and the time needed to obtain records. The Court of Appeal found no evidence showing that the discovery would be oppressive or that his health prevented him from gathering documents. It said the discovery would help make the examination practical and focused on whether assets once held might still be available, or might have been converted into other assets or interests.
The court found no material error in the High Court’s assessment of either the period covered or the €10,000 transaction threshold. It dismissed the appeal in its entirety. The examination order remains in place; the court did not decide in this appeal whether any particular asset can be used to satisfy the debt.