BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
High Court of Ireland Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Ireland Decisions >> Treasury Holding & Ors -v- The National Asset Management Agency & Ors [2012] IEHC 518 (07 December 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2012/H518.html Cite as: [2012] IEHC 518 |
||
[New search] [Help]
Judgment Title: Treasury Holding & Ors -v- The National Asset Management Agency & Ors Neutral Citation: [2012] IEHC 518 High Court Record Number: 2012 55 JR Date of Delivery: 07/12/2012 Court: High Court Composition of Court: Judgment by: Finlay Geoghegan J. Status of Judgment: Approved |
Neutral Citation Number: [2012] IEHC 518 THE HIGH COURT JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 193 OF THE NATIONAL ASSET MANAGEMENT AGENCY ACT 2009 [2012 No. 55 J.R.] BETWEEN TREASURY HOLDINGS, SPENCER DOCK DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED, SDDC (No. 1) LIMITED, SDDC (No. 2) LIMITED, SDDC (No. 3) LIMITED, SDDC (No. 4) LIMITED, FAXGORE LIMITED, REAL ESTATE OPPORTUNITIES PLC., COOLRED LIMITED, TENDERBROOK LIMITED, WINTERTIDE LIMITED, TWYNHOLM LIMITED, RIGOL LIMITED,RUSHRID LIMITED, IREO IRISH REAL ESTATE OPPORTUNITIES FUND PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY, CARRYLANE LIMITED, CALLSIDE DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED, RADTIP PROPERTIES LIMITED, SENCODE LIMITED, LORNABAY LIMITED, BALLYMUN SHOPPING CENTRE LIMITED, MONTEVETRO II LIMITED AND TREASURY HOLDINGS CHINA LIMITED APPLICANTS AND
THE NATIONAL ASSET MANAGEMENT AGENCY AND NATIONAL ASSET LOAN MANAGEMENT LIMITED RESPONDENTS AND
KBC BANK IRELAND PLC, IRISH BANK RESOLUTION CORPORATION LIMITED LUKE CHARLTON AND DAVID HUGHES NOTICE PARTIES JUDGMENT ON COSTS of Ms. Justice Finlay Geoghegan delivered on the 7th day of December 2012 1. This judgment is delivered on the application by KBC Bank Ireland plc. (“KBC”), the first named notice party, for its costs in the proceedings against the applicants. The application for costs arises out of the judgment delivered by me herein on 31st July, 2012, [2012] IEHC 297, in which I dismissed the applicants’ claim for orders of certiorari of decisions made by the first named respondent, the National Asset Management Agency (“NAMA”) on 8th December, 2011, and 25th January, 2012. 2. The application by KBC for its costs against the applicants was heard on 30th October, 2012. In the intervening period since judgment was delivered on 31st July, 2012, orders were made on 9th October, 2012, for the winding up of the first to seventh named applicants and the appointment of Mr. Michael McAteer and Mr. Paul McCann as joint official Liquidators of those companies. The remaining applicants were not the subject of winding up orders or of any resolution to wind up on the date of the hearing of the application for costs. 3. The respondents had also sought its costs against the applicants. At the hearing, I was informed that agreement had been reached between the respondents and the joint official Liquidators of the first to seventh named applicants to compromise the respondents’ claim for costs subject to the approval of the Court. By agreement of the parties, I was informed that by order of 12th November, 2012, the High Court (Cooke J.) pursuant to s. 231(1) of the Companies Act 1963, granted liberty to the joint official Liquidators to enter into the said agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, the joint official Liquidators consented to an order for the release to William Fry, as solicitors for the respondents, of the sum of €600,000 held by way of security for costs pursuant to the order of the High Court made on 26th April, 2012. The respondents consented to the release of the balance of the security identified in the said order of 26th April, 2012. It was also agreed that the respondents would not seek any order for costs against the eighth to 22nd named applicants. 4. These proceedings commenced on 25th January, 2012. On 26th January, 2012, on its own application, KBC was joined as a notice party. Similar orders, on their applications, were made in respect of Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited (“IBRC”), Mr. Luke Charleton and Mr. David Hughes, the receivers appointed by NAMA on 25th January, 2012. IBRC and Mr. Charleton and Mr. Hughes, apart from filing affidavits, did not subsequently participate in the proceedings. No application has been made in respect of their costs. 5. The interest of KBC in the proceedings was the following. Amongst the facilities of the Treasury Holdings Group taken into NAMA was a syndicated facility relating to the Spencer Dock Development. NAMA, as successor to Allied Irish Banks plc., and IBRC held 75% of the syndicated loan and KBC the remaining 25%. IBRC was the agent and security trustee for the finance parties and secured beneficiaries under the syndicated loan agreement. 6. The decisions of NAMA challenged in the judicial review proceedings and in respect of which orders of certiorari were sought were:
(b) a decision taken on 25th January, 2012, to proceed with enforcement in respect of the Applicants’ assets including the appointment of receivers. 8. KBC filed affidavits and a notice of opposition. It participated fully in the leave hearing and in the substantive hearing. It also filed written legal submissions. It supported, throughout the proceedings, the submissions made on behalf of NAMA in relation to all the public law issues. KBC made one distinct submission in reliance upon its contractual position and decisions already taken by it in relation to enforcement which, it submitted should be taken into account by the Court in exercising its discretion in the event that it determined certain of the public law issues in favour of the applicants. 9. Counsel for KBC submitted that, notwithstanding that the applicants sought no relief against KBC, its commercial interests and rights were adversely affected by the ongoing challenge in these proceedings to the decisions taken by NAMA. He submitted that it was reasonable for KBC, on the facts of the case, to seek to be joined and to appear before the Court to protect its own interests. In reliance upon the judgment of Clarke J. in Usk and District Residents Association Limited v. The Environmental Protection Agency and Greenstar Holdings Limited [2007] IEHC 30, counsel submitted that KBC, as a notice party which was successful in resisting the applicants’ claim herein, should be entitled to its costs against the applicants. He further submitted that, in accordance with that judgment and O. 99 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, the starting point should be that KBC is prima facie entitled to an order for its costs against the applicants and that there are no exceptional grounds departing from, what he submitted to be, the normal rule that “costs follow the event”. He also drew attention to the fact that in the judgment on the costs of the leave application, delivered on 12th June, 2012, [2012] IEHC 237, I granted an order that Treasury was entitled to 50% of its costs of the leave application as costs in the cause against both NAMA and KBC. 10. Counsel for the eighth to 22nd named applicants submitted, firstly, that the principle that “costs follow the event” was not necessarily the starting point in respect of an application for costs by a notice party such as KBC against which no relief was sought and which was joined at its own request. He drew attention to the fact that the solicitors for the applicants had written twice to KBC subsequent to the order granting leave, expressing the view that the interests of KBC were adequately protected by the respondents and asking KBC to “step back” from the proceedings and avoid incurring unnecessary costs. 11. Counsel for the eighth to 22nd named applicants also distinctly submitted that applying the principles relating to costs in complex litigation set out by Clarke J. in Veolia Water UK plc. and Ors. v. Fingal County Council (No. 2) [2006] IEHC 240, [2007] 2 IR 81 there should be no order for costs. By reference to the six issues in the judicial review proceedings identified at para. 15 of the judgment delivered on 31st July, [2012] IEHC 297, counsel submitted that on the first four issues, the applicants had been successful. The fifth issue, on which NAMA had been successful, he submitted, was an issue peculiar to NAMA and could not have been articulated by KBC. The sixth issue, which did relate to KBC, was not ruled upon by the Court. He further submitted that, in considering the time spent on the relevant issues, the relevant applicants’ estimate was that 65% of the time in the proceedings was spent on issues on which the applicants were successful. In all the circumstances, he submitted that there should be no order as to costs between KBC and the applicants. 12. Counsel instructed by the joint official Liquidators of the first to seventh named applicants supported the submissions made by counsel for the remaining applicants. Conclusion 14. In Usk and District Residents Association v. The Environmental Protection Agency and Greenstar Recycling Holdings Limited [2007] IEHC 30, at para. 3.4, Clarke J. stated:
16. Factually, in the present proceedings, the position of KBC is quite different and distinct to that of the respondents. The respondents were a necessary party as it was the decisions of the first named respondent which were challenged, and in the statutory scheme, it was considered that both respondents were necessary parties. It was not contended that KBC was a necessary party to the proceedings. No decision taken by it was challenged. It sought to be joined for the purpose of protecting its own economic interest. That may have been a reasonable commercial decision for it to take. However, having regard to the claim made by the applicants, it was not a necessary party to the proceedings. 17. Clarke J., on the facts of Usk as already stated, considered the starting point to be the prima facie entitlement of both the respondent and notice party to be entitled to the costs of successfully defending the substantial judicial review application, and when he came to consider the objection made to the entitlement of Greenstar as distinct from the EPA to its costs concluded, on the particular facts of the application, there was no basis for distinguishing between its position and that of the EPA. However, he added at para. 5.5. of his judgment:
19. On the facts of this application, of the principal issues in the proceedings, as identified by me at para. 15 of the judgment delivered on 31st July, 2012, [2012] IEHC 297, the first four issues were exclusively public law issues which concerned the obligations of NAMA, as a body corporate established by statute, and the rights of the applicants. NAMA was fully represented by solicitor and senior and junior counsel. KBC, a commercial bank, whilst obviously having an interest in the outcome of the proceedings, had no interest in those issues. Similarly, in relation to the fifth issue, which was a mixture of a public law and a private contract law issue concerning the standstill arrangements entered into between NAMA and the applicants in January, 2012 KBC did not have any interest in the issues concerned as distinct from having an interest in the outcome or resolution of the issues. It was never contended that it was a party at any stage to the arrangements between NAMA and the applicants which were at issue. KBC was concerned with the sixth issue identified. It was identified as an issue as KBC had put forward arguments which, depending upon the resolution of the earlier issues, it might have become necessary for the Court to consider and determine. 20. In all the circumstances of this application, I have determined that there should be no order for costs as between KBC and the applicants. I do so, firstly, by reason of the fact that KBC was not a necessary party to the proceedings; it sought to be joined and was permitted to be joined for the purpose of protecting its own commercial interests. It was not necessary for KBC to participate in the first five issues identified at para. 15 of the judgment of 31st July, 2012, [2012] IEHC 297, all of which were public law issues or a private law contractual issue which concerned NAMA and not any alleged arrangements with KBC. Insofar as KBC wished to address the Court on the sixth issue, whilst it was reasonable that KBC be permitted to do so, it does not appear to me to follow that they should be entitled to an order for costs against the applicants of defending the substantive proceedings, where the respondents were fully participating and represented and KBC decided that it wished to also participate in opposing the application in the protection of its own commercial interests. 21. Secondly, the applicants were successful on the first four issues which took up a significant portion of the time at the hearing. In application of the principles applicable to costs in complex litigation set out in Veolia Water UK plc. and Ors. v. Fingal County Council (No. 2) [2006] IEHC 240, [2007] 2 IR 81, there were significant issues opposed inter alia by KBC upon which the applicants were successful and which added to the overall time and cost of the proceedings. The only issue on which KBC had a distinct contribution took up relatively little time in the proceedings and was not determined. 22. Finally, I should add that I have considered the earlier decision I reached on 12th June, 2012, [2012] IEHC 237, in which, on the leave application, I awarded a portion of the applicants’ costs of the leave application as costs in the cause against both NAMA and KBC. As appears from that decision, KBC had chosen to participate in the leave application and oppose leave being granted. In my judgment, different principles, as set out in that judgment applied, and it is not inconsistent with the decision reached in this judgment. The applicants are not now entitled recover against KBC by reason of that decision as the costs awarded were only costs in the cause and this decision makes no order as to costs of the substantive proceedings between KBC and the applicants.
|
