High Court sets aside challenge to Nama Act

A decision letting a businessman to the constitutionality of sections of the 2009 Nama Act has been set aside by the High Court.

Thomas McEvaddy Sr claimed Nama’s actions displayed an intention to “pluck each and every income stream” from him and leave him “destitute”.

Thomas McEvaddy Sr and his company, Thomas McEvaddy Developments Ltd, last year secured permission to bring judicial review proceedings against Nama, the IBRC, the State, and receivers appointed over various assets of the applicants.

They sought various declarations that certain sections of the 2009 Nama Act are unconstitutional and incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

It was also alleged Nama was not entitled to recover any loans advanced by Anglo Irish Bank, IBRC’s predecessor in title, on public policy grounds and that Anglo had engaged in unlawful actions, including failing to report impaired loans.

It was also alleged that Anglo was not entitled to place a legal charge over one property because that arose from a loan facility provided for monies “never drawn down”.

Mr McEvaddy also claimed that a signature on a purported guarantee for a development in Mayo was not his signature.

Both Nama and IRBC brought pre-trial applications to set aside the High Court’s February 2014 decision grating permission for the judicial review. They argued the Nama Act prevents claims against the agency based on alleged wrongs by a participating institution and Anglo was such an entity. It was also argued there were no substantial issue to be tried.

In his judgment, Mr Justice Michael Peart set aside the permission because some of the grounds advanced were out of time while others were insubstantial and “not firmly based in fact.”