Mr Justice Peter Kelly was told by the couple’s solicitor, Robert Dore, that while agreement has been reached with Mr Farrell on costs issues, his wife Alison Kramer is resisting the making of a costs order against her.
Cian Ferriter SC, for Nama, said it wanted costs orders covering both Mr Farrell and Ms Kramer. While Ms Kramer had said that she was unaware of the contents of about 29 emails sent by Mr Farrell to her work email account, it may be necessary to cross-examine her about that, counsel said.
In an affidavit, Ms Kramer had said she permitted her husband to email her 29 emails with attachments to her work email address and, at his request, forwarded those to her personal email.
She said she never looked at the emails or their attachments or the contents of a document which her husband asked her to scan onto her work email address, which she then forwarded to him.
Mr Ferriter asked that the final form of costs orders should not be made until the issues related to Ms Kramer were addressed and Mr Justice Kelly agreed to adjourn the costs issues to next month.
The court previously heard the alleged misap-propriated information included a master spreadsheet of all loans acquired by Nama and all properties acquired by it as security for those loans.
Other information included lists of properties, their locations and details of ownership. Details of the information cannot be disclosed by court order.
The National Treasury Management Agency and Nama had brought the action against Mr Farrell, a former property analyst with the NTMA who was seconded to Nama, and Ms Kramer, an auditor with the Dublin office of Ernst & Young.
Last week, Mr Ferriter told Mr Justice Kelly that Nama had concluded its investigation into the matter and was not, at this stage, bringing a damages claim against Mr Farrell, who had co-operated with the investigation.
Separate inquiries are being carried out by the data protection commissioner and gardaí and Nama has made a formal complaint to the gardaí.
Mr Ferriter said his side had obtained commitments from the recipients of the data concerning its preservation, non-use, and confidentiality and he secured permanent injunctions on consent restraining Mr Farrell, his wife, and those with knowledge of the making of the orders, using or dealing with the information.
Nama had also written to Mr Farrell’s solicitors saying it was not pursuing a damages claim at this juncture but was reserving its rights in that regard.
Mr Justice Kelly was previously told the investigations to date showed no material evidence of damage to Nama.
In affidavits, Mr Farrell said, while employed with Nama and after he left the agency, he had provided certain information to named professionals based in Dublin, London, Paris, and Berlin. Details of the information cannot be disclosed by court order.
Mr Farrell said he had gained no financial benefit from the supply of information and had co-operated with Nama and the NTMA since they initiated the proceedings.
He also undertook to comply with the requests to help the agencies recover the material from the various recipients who, the court heard, had co-op-erated with Nama.