The Court of Appeal has dismissed Henry A. Crosbie’s appeal against a High Court summary judgment for €77,095,090.59 in favour of National Asset Loan Management Limited.
The appeal, transferred from the Supreme Court under Article 64 of the Constitution, concerned the High Court’s July 2014 order. The Court of Appeal agreed that Crosbie had not shown a real or bona fide defence to the monetary claim. In particular, it found that the evidence did not establish an agreement preventing the lender or the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA) from obtaining a personal judgment against him.
Crosbie relied on an agreement he said was set out in a solicitor’s letter dated 24 August 2012. The Court of Appeal said the provisions identified as the strongest part of his case concerned limits on enforcement against certain assets, including his home, a property where his son lived, business assets associated with his wife and son, and property in France. The provisions also included an alleged agreement not to petition for his bankruptcy while the agreement remained in force. The court said these matters did not amount to an agreement not to obtain a personal monetary judgment.
The court also considered Crosbie’s argument that the High Court had failed to address a counterclaim. It concluded that the counterclaim advanced in the High Court was tied to the same alleged agreement and would have served as a defence to the monetary judgment. A separate claim, raised more distinctly on appeal, sought relief about enforcement against specified properties and a possible bankruptcy petition. The Court of Appeal said no such distinct submission had been made to the High Court, and that the alleged failure to consider it did not justify allowing the appeal.
The court declined to permit a new counterclaim in the summary proceedings or impose a stay on the judgment or its enforcement. A separate plenary action had already sought some potentially related relief, and the High Court had refused a stay pending that action; that refusal was not appealed. The Court of Appeal also noted that a counterclaim would require leave in relation to a property treated as a bank asset under the National Asset Management Agency Act 2009, and said any proposed stay should first be considered in the High Court.
The judgment noted that judgment mortgages had been registered against certain properties, but said realisation would require a further court application. Crosbie could argue in those proceedings that enforcement against the identified properties was barred. Any bankruptcy petition would likewise be determined in court proceedings. The order under appeal was the summary judgment; the appeal was dismissed.