There seems to have been a recent intensification in NAMA’s litigation activity, and yesterday in Dublin’s High Court, the Agency initiated the 14th legal case at that Court this year. NAMA is suing two respondents named as “Michael Finn” and “Claire Finn” and as is usual with recently-filed cases, there is no solicitor on record for the respondents. We have no further idea from the Court Service as to who Michael and Claire Finn are, and although NAMA had receivers appointed to Galway development companies controlled by a Michael and Claire Finn last November 2012, we have no way of establishing with NAMA or the Court Service if these are the subject of this present case.
The applicant in yesterday’s case – reference 2013/1153 S – is National Asset Loan Management Limited represented by Dublin solicitors, Beauchamps.
NAMA doesn’t comment on its litigation, and in the past its court cases have addressed matters ranging from multi million euro personal settlements to protective applications because of Statute of Limitation issues.
So far this year, NAMA has initiated 14 applications in Dublin’s High Court and has been on the receiving end of (coincidentally) 14 applications with 12 relating to people who paid deposits on a NAMA developer’s Portugese golf and hotel resort.
NAMA Wine Lake 
Has anyone inquired of the Court Services why they make so little information about litigants and proceedings available through the search function on their website? I know that only the parties to a set of proceedings (as opposed to members of the public) can get access to the hard copy court file, so you can’t just rock in and peruse summonses and affidavits.
It doesn’t sit comfortably with the notion of justice being administered in public, but I expect that the reason is the Data Protection Act. I remember hearing something about the Commissioner taking the spankin’ paddle to the Land Registry about the amount of information that was available through searches about applications/dealings with property that had been completed or withdrawn, as opposed to pending.
Personally, my preference would be for the sort of transparency you get in the US.
@Will, yes, the staff at the Central Office in the Four Courts complex have been accosted and answers demanded.
Just one thing, not even the barrister acting for a party can access the documents, only the parties and their solicitors. Everyone else can go swing, you can get NOTHING additional to what is shown on the Court Service, so no address of parties, cause or remedies. It’s a medieval fortress of opaqueness and contrasts with practice in the UK (and of course the US).
They claim it is to do with Data Protection and it seems legislation might be needed to allow the documentation to be made public. Mind you, that was the obstacle to the property price register as well but as soon as the IMF piped up, the obstacle melted away. So, it’s a political will matter and an attitude in certain parts of Irish society.
Well, all legislation requires political will to be passed. I just checked the legislation, and the Residential Property Price Register required a de-application (that looks like terrible English to me, but you know what I mean) of the Data Protection Act – http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/act/pub/0040/sec0093.html#sec93.
So there’s probably not much point in having a go at staff in the Central Office (however tempting that is from time to time, gawd knows, I’ve succumbed myself on occassion in my youth), they can’t part with info or docs except to solicitors on record.
Or so they say. It doesn’t explain how the likes of Stubbs manage to publish judgments that haven’t been registered and which the judgment creditors haven’t asked to be published… Maybe accosting is not the approach required…
@Will, The Phoenix sometimes (not always) seems to be able to get the skinny on NAMA cases prior to hearings. Obviously there are at least two parties – NAMA and the other party and there are two sets of solicitors and it is possible the respondent’s solicitor might assist but in case of judgment applications, you would have thought they’d want to protect their client’s confidentiality because it’s not a badge of honour. And NAMA is adamant that they don’t comment on individual cases, and their solicitors presumably wouldn’t want to risk being kicked off the NAMA panel. You will not get any such reform with Min Shatter at the helm.