The High Court has refused Vincent Byrne leave to bring proposed proceedings against the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA), finding the application was out of time and the intended claim was statute-barred and an abuse of process.
In a judgment delivered on 24 March 2023, Ms Justice Eileen Roberts also made an Isaac Wunder order requiring Byrne to obtain the court’s permission before instituting proceedings against NAMA or any NAMA group entity. The order separately requires permission before he can take further steps in two existing cases: a judicial review case and an unserved plenary case. The judge did not strike out either existing case because they were not properly before her.
Byrne had sought leave under section 182 of the National Asset Management Agency Act 2009 to pursue claims including a declaration that the Act, or parts of it, were invalid under EU law. His proposed case alleged unlawful acquisition and sale of property assets and sought their return or damages, as well as compensation for claimed effects on family life and livelihood.
He argued that NAMA’s handling of personal data connected with the acquisition of loans deprived individuals of safeguards and effective legal remedies under EU law. NAMA opposed leave, arguing that the application was far outside the statutory time limit, the claim was barred by limitation rules, and the data protection arguments could have been raised in earlier litigation.
The judge said the loans were transferred to NAMA on 17 December 2010, and Byrne was notified in writing on 28 April 2011. The section 182 application was made in 2022. She found there was no evidence explaining the delay and no substantial reason to extend time. She also concluded that the claim was brought after the applicable six-year limitation period and that the EU law arguments could have been raised in earlier proceedings. Applying domestic rules on limitation and relitigation, she found the proposed proceedings were bound to fail and would be an abuse of process.
In considering the restriction on future litigation, the judge noted the history of proceedings involving Byrne, his father and NAMA or NAMA-appointed receivers. She referred to evidence that NAMA had incurred about €230,000 in legal fees defending proceedings, while costs orders against plaintiffs remained unpaid. She concluded that requiring prior permission was justified.
The judge’s provisional view was that NAMA should recover its costs of its motion and additional costs arising from being put on notice of Byrne’s motion. She listed the matter for mention on 19 April 2023 to address costs, the form of order and any further issues.