Harry Crosbie’s lawyers argue Nama failed to say if it would enforce judgment

Lawyers for businessman Harry Crosbie

say Nama has not said if it intends to enforce a €77 million judgment against the family homes of him and his son Simon and businesses operated by his wife and son.

Michael McDowell SC said Mr Crosbie’s application for a stay on enforcement and execution of the €77 million judgment would be “redundant” if Nama formally stated it would not seek to enforce, pending a hearing concerning the validity of an alleged August 2012 agreement between Mr Crosbie and the agency. In this case, he claims, Nama was not to enforce against certain assets or seek his bankruptcy

It seemed Paul Sreenan SC, for Nama, was instructed not to so indicate, counsel said.

Mr Sreenan said his instructions related to “assets generally” and he had no instructions relating to the homes and businesses referred to.

Nama’s concern was, if Mr Crosbie secured the stay he was seeking, the agency could lose its priority as a judgment creditor, counsel said.

The agency was not distinguishing between assets of Mr Crosbie and wanted to be able to at least register the judgment as a judgment mortgage.

Mere registration of the judgment would not prejudice Mr Crosbie, he argued.

As a public body, Nama was anxious to have the stay issue decided because two weeks had passed since the Commercial Court had ruled it was entitled to €77 million judgment but it was still unable to register it, he added.

When Mr McDowell asked Mr Justice David Keane to direct Mr Sreenan to get instructions concerning Nama’s intentions related to the Crosbie family homes and businesses, the judge said he would not because parties had to decide their own course in litigation.

Having heard more than an hour of sometimes heated submissions, the judge said he had to adjourn it to another day because he was already at hearing in another case.

The stay application will resume on Friday when the judge will hear arguments arising from Nama’s application for orders striking out proceedings initiated by Mr Crosbie – against the agency – after Nama brought summary judgment proceedings against him.

The judge ruled on June 27th that Nama was entitled to summary judgment. Last Monday, Mr Crosbie consented to the agency’s application to have his own case fast-tracked in the Commercial Court.

The agency claims that case has been brought in breach of Section 182 of the Nama Act which, it claims, requires court permission for proceedings against Nama in which any orders other than damages are sought. Submissions concerning both the Section 182 issue and the stay matter will be heard on Friday.