The High Court refused Patrick and Noel Martin leave to pursue four non-damages claims against National Asset Loan Management DAC (NALM), finding that their application did not meet the statutory tests. The ruling was delivered by Ms Justice Pilkington on 24 July 2019. The court did not determine the wider counterclaim or the separate bankruptcy proceedings.
The Martins sought declarations that NALM had breached a contract by enforcing security over properties, was estopped from enforcing loans or appointing a receiver, had invalidly appointed the receiver, and could not pursue them for any residual debt. The judge held that those claims fell under section 182 of the National Asset Management Agency Act 2009 and required leave. Claims seeking damages alone did not require leave under that provision.
The Martins said assurances by bank and NALM representatives led them to believe they would not be pursued for any debt remaining after the properties were sold. They relied on discussions over several years, including a 2014 meeting note referring to there being “no residual debt” if properties were managed, rents remitted and prices rose, and an October 2015 comment that NALM would not “get blood from a stone.”
The judge said the 2014 note did not amount to an undertaking that NALM would not pursue a residual debt. The October 2015 meeting records referred to debt of about €23.4 million and requests for repayment proposals and statements of affairs. The judge found that neither those records nor the other material established an assurance that the debt would be forgiven or not pursued. She also noted that management agreements reserved NALM’s rights, including to enforce security.
The application was made outside the statutory 30-day period. The judge found no substantial reason for the delay and no basis to grant leave as just and equitable. She considered that the Martins’ period without legal representation but found it insufficient, noting that the grounds relied on existed before the proceedings began. She also concluded that damages would be an adequate remedy for the matters pleaded in the four paragraphs.
The court therefore refused leave under section 182. It made no further order in the judgment, saying it would hear the parties about any subsequent orders or reliefs required.