The High Court has refused Patrick and Noel Martin leave to appeal a 2019 judgment concerning claims against National Asset Loan Management DAC (NALM), finding that none of their proposed points met the statutory threshold for an appeal under the National Asset Management Agency Act 2009.
In a judgment delivered on 26 May 2020, Ms Justice Pilkington considered the Martins’ application under section 194. That provision allows an appeal only where the High Court certifies that its decision involves a point of law of exceptional public importance and that an appeal is desirable in the public interest. The judge said both requirements must be met.
The underlying proceedings began in 2016. NALM was joined through an amended defence and counterclaim issued in March 2018. The Martins argued, among other things, that the court should certify whether a counterclaim counts as legal proceedings commenced for the purposes of the Act. The judge accepted that the issue could have wider statutory relevance, but concluded there was not sufficient uncertainty in the law or a basis to find the point exceptionally important and in the public interest.
The other proposed grounds concerned whether damages could be an adequate remedy for someone likely to be adjudicated bankrupt; how a court should assess delay across separate alleged causes of action; and whether the court could determine issues on affidavit evidence or make final determinations at the leave stage. The Martins also linked the last two grounds to an estoppel argument based on alleged representations by bank officials.
The judge found that the damages and delay issues were specific to the facts of the case. She also considered the estoppel argument fact-dependent, turning on the particular representations alleged. She concluded that these grounds did not meet section 194’s threshold. The judgment addressed only whether leave to appeal should be granted; it did not determine the proposed appeal points anew.
The court declined all relief sought in the motion. It did not make a decision on a requested stay of the earlier judgments in this ruling. The judge said the parties would be heard on any consequential or other orders, including costs.