The Court of Appeal has dismissed Henry A. Crosbie’s appeal against a High Court judgment ordering him to pay National Asset Loan Management Limited €77,095,090.59. The court upheld the summary judgment and refused his request to pursue a counterclaim in those proceedings over whether an agreement limited later enforcement against his assets or bankruptcy proceedings.
The debt arose from loan facilities granted by Allied Irish Banks plc and personal guarantees given by Crosbie. The liabilities were transferred to NALM, a subsidiary of the National Asset Management Agency, under the NAMA Act. A demand for payment was served on 10 March 2014 and was not met. Crosbie did not deny owing the amount claimed.
His original argument was that a 2012 agreement, summarised in correspondence between solicitors, prevented NALM from suing him for the debt. The High Court found that the correspondence did not establish a bona fide defence to the money claim and entered judgment. On appeal, the Court of Appeal agreed: the letter contained no term preventing NALM from seeking a money judgment.
Crosbie’s appeal focused instead on whether he could pursue declarations that the agreement restricted enforcement against his personal assets or a bankruptcy petition. The Court of Appeal said that this issue had been raised in the High Court as part of his defence to the money claim, not directly as a counterclaim. It also held that the proposed claim was not a set-off against the debt and was unsuitable for determination in the summary proceedings.
The court said it was not ruling on whether the agreement would prevent enforcement against any particular asset or a bankruptcy petition. Crosbie could raise that argument if NALM took such steps, including proceedings concerning a judgment mortgage or bankruptcy. The appeal was dismissed.