Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court refuses all relief claimed by plaintiffs in respect of NAMA's decision to enforce certain loans, on the grounds, inter alia, that: (a) it was clear from the chronology of events that NAMA gave the first plaintiff numerous opportunities to present his case; (b) the plaintiffs had not established that the decision to enforce rather than to accept the alternative proposals was fundamentally at variance with reason or common sense, or that there was no relevant material before NAMA that could justify the conclusion it reached; (c) both the process leading up to NAMA’s decision and the decision itself were valid and lawful, and the issue of whether damages might follow from an unlawful decision did not arise; and (d) the plaintiffs were not entitled to an order restraining NAMA from seeking to enforce a loan over the family home as the second plaintiff had signed away her rights in a private commercial transaction.
Portfolio of loans acquired by NAMA - loans and related security called in - following non-satisfaction of demand for payment receivers appointed over seven properties - properties sold and net sums applied in reduction of debt due - whether demand for payment breach of plaintiffs' constitutional rights - whether NAMA properly engaged or gave meaningful consideration to first plaintiff's proposals - whether claim for damages based on alleged unlawfulness or negligence - order sought restraining NAMA from enforcing loan against family home.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
The only subject matter index for all Irish judgments over the past thirteen years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now