The Court of Appeal has rejected an attempt to revive a dispute over tax settlements agreed with Revenue more than 30 years ago following a 1994 audit.
In a judgment dated 25 February 2026, Ms Justice Faherty upheld a High Court decision dismissing proceedings brought by Thomas Farrell and Thomas Farrell and Sons (Garages) Limited.
The dispute arose after Revenue began an audit in May 1994. The judgment records that Farrell, accompanied by professional advisers, made disclosures concerning previously undeclared funds and later proposed a settlement. Agreements were reached in October 1995, with IR£501,365 offered in settlement of tax liabilities, interest and penalties.
The plaintiffs later claimed the settlement had been procured under duress and that Revenue had failed to provide information allegedly promised as part of the agreement. Farrell also relied heavily on an AIB account ending in 051 which he said was not his and which, he argued, was connected to Revenue’s calculation of the liability.
Proceedings seeking to rescind the settlements and recover payments were not issued until October 2020.
Farrell argued that the normal limitation periods should be extended because Revenue had fraudulently concealed his right of action. The Court of Appeal rejected that argument. It held that, even taking his pleaded case at its highest, he had not identified a stateable or credible basis for saying that a Revenue officer knowingly concealed a cause of action from him.
The court also found that Farrell and his professional advisers had enough information to investigate the relevant bank accounts and bring proceedings within the normal statutory time limits. AIB had in any event supplied details of the 051 account in September 2014, more than six years before the proceedings issued.
Separately, the court upheld the High Court’s finding that a fair trial was no longer realistically possible. The Revenue officer who conducted the original audit had died, other witnesses were no longer readily available, and some allegations depended on recollections of events more than three decades old.
The appeal was dismissed. Revenue was presumptively entitled to its appeal costs, subject to further submissions.