The High Court has refused the National Asset Management Agency’s application to stay a ruling that it is a public authority under the environmental information regulations, leaving NAMA to begin considering an information request made by journalist Gavin Sheridan. The decision does not require NAMA to disclose the information.
Mr Justice Colm Mac Eochaidh delivered the stay judgment on 19 April 2013. He had ruled in the substantive proceedings on 27 February 2013 that NAMA was a public authority for the purposes of the European Communities (Access to Information on the Environment) Regulations 2007. NAMA told the court it wished to appeal that decision and sought a stay while the appeal proceeded. The Commissioner for Environmental Information took a neutral position on the stay application.
Sheridan, who was not a party to the proceedings, had asked NAMA in February 2010 for details of assets, loans and properties transferred to or controlled by the agency, including values and addresses, and for board minutes about transfers between January 2009 and January 2010. NAMA refused on the threshold ground that it was not a public authority. The judge noted that it had not yet decided whether the requested material was environmental information or whether any grounds for refusing access applied. Sheridan told the court that more than 1,000 days had passed without a substantive response.
The judge said the public authority ruling did not automatically oblige NAMA to provide the material. The regulations include mandatory and discretionary grounds for refusal, including protection of personal information and commercial confidentiality, and allow refusal of requests that are manifestly unreasonable or too general.
In weighing the application, the judge considered the potential delay if a stay were granted, noting that Supreme Court appeals could take three to five years and that no urgency had been shown. He found no evidence that processing the request would place an undue administrative or financial burden on NAMA, or unfairly invade third-party rights. He concluded that the balance of justice favoured refusing the stay.
The order means NAMA must start dealing with the request, at least far enough to establish what information, if any, must be disclosed. If it later concludes that disclosure is required and would cause irreparable harm, it could seek a stay from the Supreme Court. The judge also rejected a proposal to grant a general stay while exempting Sheridan’s request.