NAMA secures judgment orders prior to bid for bankruptcy in UK
NAMA has secured €29m judgment orders against businessman David Cullen over outstanding loans made for properties including the Turk's Head Bar and Paramount Hotel in Dublin's Temple Bar.
Mr Justice Peter Kelly ruled Mr Cullen had advanced no grounds of defence to the agency's claim and refused to grant a stay on judgment pending consideration of an appeal.
Maurice Collins, counsel for NAMA, had opposed a stay on grounds including a decision is due on April 9 next on Mr Cullen's application to be named a bankrupt in England.
NAMA had objected to that bankruptcy application, saying Mr Cullen's centre of main interest is Ireland, not England.
NAMA's application for summary judgment had already been delayed by "meritless" points raised by Mr Cullen and a stay could impact on the Irish court proceedings if Mr Cullen was declared bankrupt in the interim, he added.
However, the judge said no grounds had been advanced to justify a stay.
Mr Cullen said he had an arguable defence to the application by NAMA subsidiary, the National Assets Loan Management Ltd (NALM),for summary judgment.
In 2010, NAMA took over loans which had been advanced by Bank of Ireland from 2002 to Mr Cullen. The loans were for a number of purposes, including the development of the Turk's Head and Paramount as well as the Seafield Hotel and apartments in Ballymoney, Co Wexford. Mr Cullen is now living in London.
Mr Justice Kelly previously ruled his UK bankruptcy proceedings did not mean the Irish courts could not deal with NAMA's application.
In his reserved judgment yesterday, Mr Justice Kelly said it was "very clear" there was no defence to summary judgment and he entered judgment for €29,129,405 against Mr Cullen, plus interest and costs.
The judge noted that while Mr Cullen had argued NAMA was not entitled to acquire his bank loans in 2010, he first objected to the acquisition in this legal action two years later.
He rejected other claims NALM did not have the legal standing to bring the case or that the loan facilities were not "eligible bank assets" within the meaning of the NAMA Act 2009.
Mr Cullen had argued some of the loans were made for multiple purposes but the judge ruled, whether or not the purpose of each of the loans was expressly related to development land, the breadth of the definition of eligible bank assets covered all the loans.