Judge rejects Nama attempt to revise court findings
A Nama attempt to have a High Court Judge review and revise a judgment in which he called a Nama official's evidence "misleading" has failed.
In a judgment, Mr Justice Brian Cregan reiterated that description of the evidence of Nama official Peter Malbasha. Nama declined to comment.
Counsel for Nama had argued that Judge Cregan's findings were based on "an erroneous understanding of the situation and that Mr Malbasha had suffered some 'reputational damage' as a result of these findings," Judge Cregan said. But the judge said that having examined the matter he still held the opinion that two paragraphs of a Malbasha affidavit - particularly in light of errors made by Nama in a petition to the court, as well as in an affidavit of Nama official Margaret Magee - "all combined to leave the court with a misleading impression of what had happened".
"Whilst I accept that Mr Malbasha did not intend to mislead, nevertheless a misleading impression was given to the court by his affidavit evidence," Judge Cregan said. "In the circumstances I do not believe it is necessary or appropriate for me to review this part of the judgment as requested". The initial judgment related to a case involving Nama and the developer Garrett Kelleher. The parties had gone to court over a dispute involving Middlebrook Ltd -- a company connected to Kelleher.
Nama had taken control of Middlebrook and appointed receivers over it, but Middlebrook was struck off the company register after it did not file accounts.
The Nama-appointed receivers sought to have the company restored to the register but a dispute arose over who should pay the fees to have that done - Nama or Kelleher and the other company directors.
Malbasha said Nama tried to appoint receivers to Middlebrook in March 2014, but could not do so as the company had been struck off. However, Judge Cregan found that the company was in receivership at the time of the strike-off.
Sunday Indo Business