The High Court has rejected Carol and John Morrissey’s claims against the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA) and Capita Asset Services (Ireland) Ltd over loans secured on investment properties and their family home. The court also granted NAMA and Capita’s counterclaim. The ruling did not decide whether NAMA could enforce against the family home: no enforcement decision had been taken on that loan.
In a judgment delivered on 2 July 2019, Ms Justice Ní Raifeartaigh found that NAMA’s January 2014 decision to demand repayment and appoint receivers over seven investment properties was lawful. The plaintiffs had argued that NAMA acted unfairly, failed to consider John Morrissey’s proposals properly and breached constitutional and other rights. The judge found that he had repeated opportunities to make submissions and was told the reasons NAMA was considering enforcement, including its concerns about rental income and a requested statement of his financial affairs.
The judge said the court’s role was not to decide which option made the most commercial sense. It was to assess whether NAMA’s decision was irrational under the applicable judicial review tests. The plaintiffs had not shown that the decision was fundamentally at odds with reason or common sense, or that it lacked relevant supporting material. The court also rejected the negligence claim, finding the plaintiffs had not established the necessary elements.
The family-home claims were premature, the judgment said. There had been no offer from Mrs Morrissey to buy the house and no NAMA decision rejecting such an offer. The dispute arose from a proposed third-party package, which included a value for the house that NAMA considered too low. The judge said the evidence did not establish that NAMA had barred Mrs Morrissey from buying because she was the debtor’s wife.
The court also found that Mrs Morrissey had signed the family-home mortgage documents and received legal advice. It found insufficient evidence of an enforceable agreement with Irish Nationwide Building Society (INBS) allowing reduced monthly payments on that mortgage. The judge did not need to determine the constitutional challenge to section 101 of the National Asset Management Agency Act 2009, which concerns certain undisclosed arrangements relating to acquired bank assets.
The judgment rejected claims that alleged wrongdoing by INBS invalidated the loans, and found no evidence that ministerial interference caused NAMA’s enforcement decision. It did not decide the plaintiffs’ constitutional challenges to provisions of the 2009 Act, finding those issues unnecessary to resolve.
The court’s final order was to refuse all relief sought by the plaintiffs in their plenary action and grant the reliefs sought by NAMA and Capita in their counterclaim. The judgment does not specify the terms of those counterclaim reliefs in its concluding paragraph.