Court of Appeal dismisses father and son's damages claim against Nama
The claim arose over Nama's acquisition of loans advanced to Mr Byrne Sr and another individual, of €5.5m and €715,000, from AIB to develop a site located at Parnell Rd, Dublin 12. FIle picture: Sasko Lazarov/RollingNews.ie
A claim brought by a father and son over the acquisition of €6.2m in loans by Nama has been dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
The proceedings were brought by Vincent Byrne and his son Vincent Byrne Junior.
The claim arose over Nama's acquisition of loans advanced to Mr Byrne Sr and another individual, of €5.5m and €715,000, from AIB to develop a site located at Parnell Rd, Dublin 12.
A charge over the site, which was a fuel station, and apartments located at Blackhorse Avenue, Dublin, and owned by the Byrnes were put up as security for the loans.
The proposed development never proceeded, the loans got into difficulty, and, in 2010, the loans were transferred to Nama. Receivers were eventually appointed over the properties.
The Byrnes brought various High Court proceedings arising out of the acquisition of the loans and the properties being put into receivership.
In 2016 they sued Nama, claiming the agency had failed to afford the Byrnes fair procedures during the decision-making process that led to the acquisition of the loans and associated securities.
The Byrnes also complained that, in breach of their rights, they did not get clear reasons for the acquisition. Nama sought to have their claim struck out on the basis that it was frivolous, vexatious, and was statute-barred.
In 2018 the High Court struck out some, but not all, of the Byrnes' action against Nama. Their claim for damages, for Nama's alleged breach of the EU Charter and failing to comply with regulations governing state aid, was struck out.
However, the court allowed their damages claim for alleged breaches of the constitutional right to fair procedures and the European Convention of Human Rights to stand.
Nama appealed that ruling, by Mr Justice Michael MacGrath, and argued that all of the Byrnes' proceedings against it should have been dismissed.
The Byrnes cross-appealed the High Court's decision, and argued that of all of their claim should be reinstated.
In a judgment, the three-judge Court of Appeal, comprised of Ms Justice Aileen Donnelly, Mr Justice Seamus Noonan and Mr Justice Donald Binchy unanimously found in Nama's favour and dismissed the entirety of the Byrnes' claim against the agency.
The appeals court also dismissed the Byrnes' cross-appeal against the High Court ruling.
Giving the court's decision, Mr Justice Noonan said the Byrnes' claim was statute-barred.
The Byrnes' case, he said, was initiated outside of the expiration of the longest limitation period applicable to the claim and were accordingly bound to fail.
