The High Court has adjourned Perrigo Pharma International DAC’s challenge to a €1.64 billion tax assessment, ruling that the case could not proceed as scheduled on 21 April 2020 during the COVID-19 restrictions.
The ruling, delivered by Mr Justice David Barniville on 7 April 2020, concerned applications about how the judicial review should proceed. The case challenges a Revenue Commissioners assessment arising from Elan’s 2013 sale of its interest in the multiple sclerosis drug Tysabri. Perrigo acquired Elan later that year.
Perrigo proposed a restricted in-person hearing, with limits on attendance, social distancing, health checks and daily deep cleaning. The Revenue Commissioners and other respondents sought an adjournment, citing the public health risk, the closure of the Revenue Solicitor’s office and the difficulty of preparing documents for counsel. They also said the solicitor primarily handling the case could not attend for health reasons. Perrigo opposed an adjournment, arguing it was premature and unnecessary under its proposed protocol, and that delay would prejudice the company.
The judge was not satisfied that the proposed arrangements made an in-person hearing possible. He cited movement restrictions, social-distancing requirements, the demands the protocol would place on the Courts Service and the need to prioritise urgent cases. He also took account of the respondents’ difficulties accessing and copying four boxes of documents.
A remote hearing was also not possible on 21 April. Perrigo opposed that option given the case’s length, documentation and complexity, while the respondents said the feasibility of remote hearings remained uncertain. The judge made no final determination on whether the case might later be suitable for remote hearing.
The court adjourned the hearing generally, with liberty to re-enter. The parties may seek a new hearing date by correspondence once restrictions are lifted and the public health position is clearer. They may also apply by correspondence for a remote hearing if arrangements become available. The case was listed for mention at 10.30am on 5 May 2020, in whatever format was then permitted. Costs of the applications were made costs in the cause.
The ruling addressed scheduling and hearing arrangements only; it did not decide the judicial review challenge to the assessment.