Byrne v National Assets Managment Agency

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Clarke C.J.,O'Malley J.,Baker J.
• Judgment Date: 02 February 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] IESCDET 9
• Date: 02 February 2021
• Court: Supreme Court
• Docket Number: Supreme Court record no: S:AP:IE:2020:000142 High Court record no: 2016 No. 11419 P

BETWEEN

VINCENT BYRNE

AND

VINCENT BYRNE JUNIOR

PLAINTIFFS

AND

NATIONAL ASSETS MANAGEMENT AGENCY

DEFENDANT

[2021] IESCDET 9

Clarke C.J.

O'Malley J.

Baker J.

Supreme Court record no: S:AP:IE:2020:000142

Court of Appeal record no: A:AP:IE:2018:000262

High Court record no: 2016 No. 11419 P

THE SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO WHICH ARTICLE 34.5.3° OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES

RESULT: The Court does not grant leave to the Second Named Plaintiff to appeal to this Court from the Court of Appeal

REASONS GIVEN:

ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED

COURT: Court of Appeal

DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 11 th November, 2020

DATE OF ORDER: 11 th November, 2020

DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 7 th December, 2020

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 24 th December, 2021 AND WAS IN TIME.

General Considerations

1 The general principles applied by this Court in determining whether to grant or refuse leave to appeal having regard to the criteria incorporated into the Constitution as a result of the Thirty-third Amendment have now been considered in a large number of determinations and are fully addressed in both a determination issued by a panel consisting of all of the members of this Court in B. S. v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 134 and in a unanimous judgment of a full Court delivered by O'Donnell J. in Quinn Insurance Ltd. v. PricewaterhouseCoopers [2017] IESC 73, [2017] 3 IR 812. It follows that it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purposes of this determination.

2 Furthermore, the application for leave filed and the respondent's notice are published along with this determination (subject only to any redaction required by law) and it is therefore unnecessary to set out the position of the parties.

3 Any ruling in a determination concerns whether the facts and legal issues meet the constitutional criteria identified above, is particular to that application, and is final and conclusive only to that extent and as between the parties.

4 The respondent is opposed to the application for leave to appeal.

The Application

5 This is the application of Mr. Vincent Byrne Jnr. (“the applicant”) for leave to appeal to this Court pursuant to the provisions of Article 34.5.3° of the Constitution from the order of the Court of Appeal of 11 November 2020 following a written judgment of 11 November 2020, [2020] IECA 305 (Noonan J., with whom Donnelly and Binchy JJ. agreed), striking out his claim in its entirety.

6 The proceedings, issued by the applicant and his father, Mr. Vincent Byrne Snr., in December 2016 plead an alleged failure by NAMA to afford the Byrnes fair procedures during the process that led to their loans and securities being acquired. Following the decision of the High Court of 23 March 2018, in which MacGrath J. struck out the Byrnes' claim in part only ( [2018] IEHC 526), NAMA appealed to the Court of Appeal to strike out the claim in its entirety and the Byrnes' cross-appealed against that part of the order striking out parts of their claim.

7 The Court of Appeal allowed NAMA's appeal, substituting for the order of the High Court an order striking out the Byrnes' claim in its entirety. The Court found that the proceedings were bound to fail, having been instituted more than six years after 17 December 2010 and, therefore, after the expiration of the longest limitation period that could be applicable...