The High Court refused Henry A. Crosbie’s application to pause specified enforcement of a €77,095,090.59 summary judgment in favour of National Asset Loan Management Limited (NALM). It also struck out the relief sought in paragraphs 1 to 5 of a separate plenary summons against NALM and the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA), finding that those claims required permission under the National Asset Management Agency Act 2009.
Mr Justice Keane delivered the judgment on 31 July 2014. The two applications were heard together on 11 July. The summary judgment had been granted on 27 June in respect of personal loans and guarantees. In that earlier decision, the court found Mr Crosbie had not shown a fair or reasonable probability of a real or bona fide defence. It also said a letter relied on by Mr Crosbie could not reasonably be understood as an agreement by NALM not to seek a money judgment.
Mr Crosbie’s separate proceedings, begun on 12 June, sought declarations concerning an alleged agreement with NAMA and NALM, the treatment of debt secured on the Bord Gáis Energy Theatre, an injunction against enforcement and damages for alleged misfeasance in public office. He argued that enforcement against certain assets would cause financial and livelihood harm. NAMA and NALM argued that a stay could leave them unable to recover assets if his claims failed.
The judge said the court had a broad discretion to grant a stay where necessary to minimise the risk of injustice. For this application only, he assumed there was an issue to be tried in the separate proceedings and that damages might not be an adequate remedy for Mr Crosbie. He did not decide either question. He concluded that the greater risk of injustice lay in granting the stay, which could undermine speedy justice and bypass the statutory test for equivalent relief in the separate case. The stay was refused.
The court held that section 182 applied to the separate proceedings because they concerned Mr Crosbie’s debts, guarantees and related security. Under that section, claims generally provide only for damages or other relief that does not affect the relevant bank asset; other remedies require court permission. The judge rejected Mr Crosbie’s proposal to treat the strike-out application as a combined hearing of his permission application and the substantive relief request.
The court struck out the claims for the reliefs listed in paragraphs 1 to 5 of the plenary summons because no order under section 182(2) had been obtained. The judgment did not determine the merits of the underlying claims. The judge left costs for a further hearing.