National Asset Loan Management DAC Ltd -v- Breslin [2017] IECA 283 (26 October 2017)

National Asset Loan Management DAC Ltd -v- Breslin [2017] IECA 283 (26 October 2017)

The appellant failed to establish any enforceable representation or collateral warranty; the guarantee was validly acquired by NAMA under the NAMA Act, as evidenced by the section 108 certificate; negative pledge clauses did not invalidate the transfer; the alleged compromise agreement was not binding on NAMA; and the constitutional challenge was out of time and without merit. Accordingly, summary judgment was properly granted.

Citation
[2017] IECA 283
Parties
Plaintiff / Respondent: National Asset Loan Management Designated Activity Company Limited; Defendant / Appellant: Michael Breslin
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
26 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment in Commercial Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; summary judgment affirmed.
Legal Topics
Guarantee Enforcement, Summary Judgment, Asset Transfer Under NAMA Act, Negative Pledge Clauses, Contractual Estoppel, Constitutionality of Statutes
Banking Law Contract Law Commercial Law Constitutional Law Guarantee Enforcement Summary Judgment Asset Transfer Under NAMA Act Negative Pledge Clauses +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Asset Loan Management Designated Activity Company Limited

Plaintiff / Respondent

Michael Breslin

Defendant / Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment in Commercial Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was induced to enter the guarantee by enforceable representations
  2. 2 Whether the guarantee was validly acquired by NAMA
  3. 3 Effect of negative pledge clauses on asset transfer

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to establish any enforceable representation or collateral warranty; the guarantee was validly acquired by NAMA under the NAMA Act, as evidenced by the section 108 certificate; negative pledge clauses did not invalidate the transfer; the alleged compromise agreement was not binding on NAMA; and the constitutional challenge was out of time and without merit. Accordingly, summary judgment was properly granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; summary judgment affirmed.

Orders

  • Summary judgment in the sum of £9,397,725.60 sterling and costs against the appellant.