The High Court has given National Asset Loan Management Limited liberty to enter judgment against company director Henry A. Crosbie for €77,095,090.59, plus interest and costs, after finding that his asserted agreement with NAMA did not provide an arguable defence to the claim.
In a judgment delivered on 18 June 2014, Mr Justice Keane considered the plaintiff’s application for summary judgment. Crosbie acknowledged that the debt remained outstanding under personal loan facilities and guarantees originally given to Allied Irish Banks. He argued that an August 2012 agreement with NAMA prevented it from pursuing his remaining assets and defending the present claim.
The claimed agreement was set out in a letter dated 24 August 2012 from Crosbie’s solicitor. It described proposed arrangements involving the release of claims over specified homes, transfers of businesses, proceeds from French property sales and dealings with other creditors. Crosbie said the letter recorded a comprehensive settlement. NAMA argued that it did not waive its right to seek a money judgment or amount to a full and final compromise of the debt.
For the purpose of the application, NAMA conceded that the terms in the letter continued to bind the parties. The judge therefore focused on whether those terms could support Crosbie’s claimed defence. He said the letter contained no wording that NAMA would refrain from seeking a money judgment or give up personal recourse beyond the assets addressed in the letter. He also rejected Crosbie’s argument that such a restriction could be implied into the agreement.
The judge accepted that the letter could impose obligations concerning specified assets and that its provisions might limit enforcement against those assets while the agreement remained in force. He also accepted, for the application, that a provision concerning settlement with two other banks could imply that NAMA would not petition for Crosbie’s bankruptcy during the relevant period. But he found those possible obligations did not extend to an agreement not to seek judgment for the debt.
The ruling resolved the summary judgment application on the sole defence advanced. The judge did not determine other disputes raised in the proceedings, including whether Crosbie had breached an earlier memorandum of understanding or whether NAMA’s conduct was appropriate. He concluded that Crosbie had not shown a fair or reasonable probability of a real or bona fide defence and held that the plaintiff was entitled to liberty to enter judgment in the terms of the summary summons.