The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA), holding that it is a public authority for the purposes of Ireland’s environmental information regulations because it performs public administrative functions.
The judgment, delivered by O’Donnell J. on 23 June 2015, concerned NAMA’s refusal to process an information request on the ground that it was not a public authority. The Court’s decision settled that status question. It did not determine whether the records sought were environmental information, whether the request was too broad or unreasonable, or whether any records had to be released.
The request was made by Gavin Sheridan in February 2010. He initially sought details of assets, loans and properties transferred to or held by NAMA, including their addresses and values, along with relevant board minutes. After discussions with an investigator, he proposed narrowing the request to certain non-residential property and loans in County Leitrim, then sought environmental impact assessments concerning NAMA properties and loans. The judgment said the status of those later formulations as refinements or new requests could remain to be decided.
NAMA rejected the original request, arguing that it was not a public authority under the 2007 regulations and that the requested material was not environmental information. The Commissioner for Environmental Information later annulled NAMA’s decision and held that NAMA fell within a provision covering a board or body established by statute. The High Court upheld the Commissioner’s decision, and NAMA appealed on a point of law.
The Supreme Court rejected the Commissioner’s reasoning that the regulations’ list of bodies automatically extended the definition of public authority beyond the criteria implementing European law. It found that the list illustrated the scope of the core definition. Applying the European Court of Justice’s ruling in *Fish Legal*, the Court held that NAMA’s statutory powers—including compulsory acquisition, enforcement and restrictions on remedies—went beyond powers arising under ordinary private-law relationships.
The Court concluded that NAMA performed public administrative functions and therefore came within the regulations. It dismissed the appeal. The judgment left the environmental character of the requested records and the handling of the request itself for further consideration.