Judgment: 2025-02-13 · Court archive

High Court defers decision on Revenue strike-out bid to allow amendment application

A farmer has six weeks to seek leave to amend his claim against the Revenue Commissioners. The court made no substantive findings and did not decide whether the claim should be struck out.

High Court · [2025] IEHC 63

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Alo Mohan (Plaintiff)
  • Revenue Commissioners
  • Garrett Simons (Judge)
What

A farmer has six weeks to seek leave to amend his claim against the Revenue Commissioners. The court made no substantive findings and did not decide whether the claim should be struck out.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Poultry sector
When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 14 May 2020

    The judge also noted that some events in the existing pleading were said to have occurred more than six years before the proceedings began on 14 May 2020. However, Mr Mohan’s affidavits referred to alleged events from August or September 2014, within that six-year period. The court said it would be premature to decide the limitation argument before the proposed amendment application was considered.

  • 27 March 2025

    The High Court has deferred a decision on the Revenue Commissioners’ application to strike out a farmer’s claim, giving him until 27 March 2025 to apply for permission to amend his statement of claim.

  • 30 April 2025

    Mr Mohan must file a notice of motion and grounding affidavit in the High Court Central Office and serve them on the Office of the Revenue Solicitor by 27 March 2025. The affidavit must include a proposed amended statement of claim showing additions and deletions. The motion is to be listed for mention on 30 April 2025. Costs of the strike-out application to date were reserved.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The judgment also rejected Mr Mohan’s allegation that a solicitor’s affidavit contained perjury. The judge made no definitive findings on the central facts, but said the affidavit did not claim first-hand knowledge that Mr Mohan had traded through the co-operative. He considered that any mistaken interpretation of the pleading arose from its unclear chronology.

The High Court has deferred a decision on the Revenue Commissioners’ application to strike out a farmer’s claim, giving him until 27 March 2025 to apply for permission to amend his statement of claim.

Mr Justice Garrett Simons said the plaintiff, Alo Mohan, had shown a realistic possibility that defects in his pleading might be corrected. The judge stressed that the decision was limited to allowing time for an amendment application. It did not endorse the draft amendments, decide whether they should be allowed, or determine the strike-out application.

Mr Mohan alleges widespread tax evasion in the poultry sector, including the use of a co-operative to recover VAT. He says he refused to participate in the Sicín Co-op after his accountant advised him that the arrangement was fraudulent and could involve criminal offences. He alleges that he later stopped trading with a poultry processor and suffered loss and damage, including psychiatric or psychological injury. Those are allegations, not findings by the court.

The Revenue Commissioners sought to strike out the proceedings, arguing primarily that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and that the claim was out of time. The judge said the existing pleading did not set out essential elements of the alleged tort of misfeasance in public office. It did not plead the required state of mind of the officials, give proper particulars of the alleged acts or omissions, explain how those acts caused Mr Mohan’s loss, or quantify the losses claimed.

The judge also noted that some events in the existing pleading were said to have occurred more than six years before the proceedings began on 14 May 2020. However, Mr Mohan’s affidavits referred to alleged events from August or September 2014, within that six-year period. The court said it would be premature to decide the limitation argument before the proposed amendment application was considered.

The judgment also rejected Mr Mohan’s allegation that a solicitor’s affidavit contained perjury. The judge made no definitive findings on the central facts, but said the affidavit did not claim first-hand knowledge that Mr Mohan had traded through the co-operative. He considered that any mistaken interpretation of the pleading arose from its unclear chronology.

Mr Mohan must file a notice of motion and grounding affidavit in the High Court Central Office and serve them on the Office of the Revenue Solicitor by 27 March 2025. The affidavit must include a proposed amended statement of claim showing additions and deletions. The motion is to be listed for mention on 30 April 2025. Costs of the strike-out application to date were reserved.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review