The High Court has allowed two damages claims by Vincent Byrne and Vincent Byrne Junior against the National Asset Management Agency to proceed, while striking out other relief sought in their summons. The ruling was made on NAMA’s preliminary application to dismiss or strike out the proceedings; it did not decide whether the damages claims will succeed.
The father and son allege that NAMA failed to give them a fair opportunity to make representations before acquiring bank assets linked to loans and property secured by mortgages and a guarantee. They claim the alleged procedural failures breached constitutional and European rights and caused financial loss. They also contend that the subsequent sale of the properties by statutory receivers flowed from the allegedly unlawful acquisition.
The assets were transferred to NAMA’s group entity, National Asset Loan Management Agency, on 17 December 2010. The loans fell into arrears, receivers were appointed in 2014, and the properties were sold in 2016. NAMA argued that the claims were out of time, required leave under the National Asset Management Agency Act 2009, amounted to an out-of-time challenge to the acquisition, and represented an abuse of process given earlier litigation.
MacGrath said the claim, properly understood, was predicated on the alleged invalidity of NAMA’s acquisition and could amount to a collateral challenge. But he could not conclude on the material before him that it was bound to fail or that the collateral-challenge argument was established. He also found it was too early to determine when any cause of action accrued for limitation purposes. The court accepted NAMA’s argument that the EU Charter did not apply in this case, while finding the other issues required further consideration.
The judge also rejected two preliminary objections by the Byrnes: that NAMA’s late compliance with a practice direction for litigants in person prevented the motion proceeding, and that the motion was premature because NAMA had not yet delivered a defence. He found no prejudice from the practice-direction failure and no absolute procedural bar to bringing the motion before a defence.
The court struck out the claims for relief in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the plenary summons. It left the damages claims in paragraphs 1 and 2 standing. The judgment did not resolve those claims; the court said it would hear submissions on their further prosecution.