DELAYS IN decision-making by the National Asset Management Agency are frustrating the work of the Commercial Court and imposing unnecessary additional costs on the taxpayer, a High Court judge said yesterday.
Mr Justice Peter Kelly said he could not have a situation where the work of the Commercial Court was “sterilised” because Nama is considering matters over “an inordinate period”.
A number of cases had been delayed due to the agency not making decisions, this was “of no benefit to anyone” and he was not prepared to tolerate it.
The judge, who manages the Commercial Court list, made the remarks after being told yesterday that a Nama decision was still awaited on a proposal some months ago from the Minister for the Environment in an effort to settle a €40 million claim by Durkan New Homes against the Minister as successor to a State agency, the Affordable Homes Partnership.
The case relates to alleged failure to honour a contract under which the partnership agreed to swap Harcourt Terrace Garda station in Dublin for 215 affordable housing units in the greater Dublin area.
Nama was asked on May 30th last to make a decision on the Minister’s proposal, which had then been with the agency for a few weeks. A decision was still outstanding, the judge was told. Pending that decision, the sides were concerned necessary steps to proceed with the case would incur substantial costs related to discovery of documents.
When the judge asked if Nama had indicated when a decision would be made, Bill Shipsey SC, for Durkan New Homes, said they had been told last week it was being considered “higher up” in Nama.
James Doherty, for the Minister, said if the proposal was acceptable to the agency, it was acceptable to the Durkan side and the Minister hoped there would be a decision soon as he did not want to spend money on litigation unnecessarily. The judge said he was “sure the taxpayer feels the same” and noted the taxpayer is funding Nama.
Ruling on procedural issues, Mr Justice Kelly noted he had previously provisionally adjourned the proceedings because of settlement talks. A proposal had been made but could not be given effect to because of Nama’s involvement and the court had expected Nama would have made its position clear by now but it had not.
As a result, motions for discovery were before the court that would add to the expense of the litigation for which the taxpayer was picking up the tab, he said. This was not a satisfactory situation and he was not prepared to tolerate it.
The judge said he would stay discovery issues for a week to allow the sides press Nama for a decision.
