Harry Crosbie: Gross injustice done over €77m debt

Businessman Harry Crosbie has said a gross injustice has been done because Nama failed to honour a deal that certain personal assets would not be part of the enforcement of a judgement against him for a €77m commercial debt.

He is appealing a High Court decision last year granting the judgement to a Nama company, National Asset Loan Management Ltd (NALM).

Mr Crosbie says that while he is liable for the debt, NALM was not entitled to seek an order enforcing the judgement against his home in Hanover Quay, Dublin, his son’s home in Blackrock, Dublin, and against some of his wife’s assets.

Last year, Mr Justice David Keane ruled NALM was entitled to summary judgement orders for €77m arising from debts and guarantees of liabilities of two of his firms, Shoal Trading and Ossory Park Management.

The judge found Mr Crosbie failed to show any reasonable prospect of a genuine defence to the Nama claim such as would entitle him to a full court hearing .

The judge also later ruled NALM was entitled to enforce the judgment against certain assets.

The Court of Appeal yesterday began hearing the case. It resumes next week.

Michael McDowell, opening Mr Crosbie’s appeal, said the proceedings were “unjust from beginning to end” including that his client was not allowed to make his case at a full hearing.

The High Court judge, he contended, applied a wholly inappropriate test to a letter which was used to argue the case Mr Crosbie enjoyed immunity for certain personal assets from enforcement of the debt.

The August 2012 letter from Mr Crosbie’s solicitors to NALM precluded enforcement over personal assets and from making him bankrupt. It was “a gross injustice to allow NALM ignore that agreement” which Mr Crosbie benefits from substantially, counsel said.

NALM had argued there was no such agreement and if there was, it was “a temporary little arrangement”.

It had also argued what Mr Crosbie had agreed to was some sort of collateral remedy which, in event of judgement being given, that it would not be used against him but, the NALM side said, that was a separate matter.

However, Mr McDowell said that, as soon as it got judgment, NALM sought to register a judgement mortgage against the assets.

A stay was put on the registering of the judgement pending the outcome of the appeal.

“The reality of the High Court order clearly had the effect of giving NALM direct access to the assets which we say they solemnly agreed would never be subject to any redress or enforcement,” Mr McDowell said.

Counsel said as part of the agreement between Mr Crosbie and NALM, the businessman’s 50% interest in the O2 Arena (now the 3 Arena) was taken over and sold for €35m.

The High Court had also refused to allow Mr Crosbie bring separate proceedings over the disputed agreement because he had not first got permission of the court, as required under the Nama Act.

Paul Sreenan, counsel for NALM, said that at no part in the agreement and memoranda of understanding between NALM and Mr Crosbie was it said there would be no enforcement of the debt.

Mr Crosbie was an experienced businessman, well familiar with terms such as “debt forgiveness” and “full and final settlement”. These were terms which were specifically not accepted by NALM in its negotiations with him, counsel said.