The High Court has entered judgment for National Asset Loan Management Limited for €29,129,405.90 against David Cullen, plus continuing interest, after rejecting his proposed defences to the company’s summary judgment application.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Kelly on 22 March 2013, concerned loans Bank of Ireland had advanced to Cullen between 1996 and 2010. The plaintiff said the facilities were transferred to it under the National Asset Management Agency Act 2009. Cullen did not deny that the bank had advanced the money. He argued that the plaintiff was not entitled to sue, that the loans were not eligible for transfer, that he had not been given a sufficient opportunity to make representations or repurchase them, and that evidence supporting the claim was inadmissible.
The judge rejected the challenge to the plaintiff’s standing. The evidence included an acquisition schedule dated 28 October 2010, identifying National Asset Loan Management as the transferee, and a later certificate confirming the transfer. The court held that the statutory scheme allowed the assets to transfer directly to the plaintiff. It also rejected objections to the certificate, including that its later date could not establish the earlier transfer.
The court found the facilities qualified as eligible bank assets. It noted that several loans financed the purchase or development of property in Dublin and County Wexford, or were secured on property connected with development. The judge concluded that the statutory definitions also covered other facilities advanced to the same borrower, even where an individual loan’s purpose was not itself linked to development land.
On representations, the judgment records that Cullen was told in 2010 that his loans could be transferred. He later engaged through accountants, submitted a business plan and made representations after it was rejected. The judge considered the complaint an attempt to challenge the acquisition decision, subject to the Act’s one-month limit for judicial review. No evidence was provided to justify extending that period. The court also found no evidence that Cullen could have refinanced, redeemed or acquired the facilities at the time of transfer.
The judge ruled that evidence from Peter Malbasha, an asset recovery manager assigned to NAMA, was admissible. He cited the statutory provision allowing NAMA officers to provide evidence from relevant banking records, and also referred to an affidavit from a Bank of Ireland senior manager familiar with the accounts.
Applying the summary judgment test, the court found each defence lacked merit and that no issue required a full hearing. It entered judgment for the full amount claimed, with continuing interest.