The High Court refused to let two intended plaintiffs use assumed names in a proposed case seeking to prevent the Revenue Commissioners from publishing details of their tax settlement. After that ruling, the plaintiffs decided not to pursue the substantive proceedings, which the judge said were never, in reality, commenced.
Mr Justice Clarke delivered his judgment on 18 January 2008, explaining a ruling he had announced on 12 December 2007. The preliminary application had been heard on 11 December. The judge said he was not persuaded that the plaintiffs could bring the intended proceedings anonymously; he did not decide the underlying dispute about whether publication was legally required.
The plaintiffs’ solicitor told the court that the plaintiffs had reached a settlement with Revenue on 24 October 2007 covering liabilities up to and including 2001. Revenue had acknowledged a €1,136,685 payment under a scheme for holders of offshore assets who disclosed undeclared liabilities. The settlement included €355,658.32 in penalties, matching the primary tax liability calculated by the plaintiffs’ own tax advisers.
Revenue maintained that the settlement details had to be published by 31 December 2007 under section 1086 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997. The plaintiffs’ advisers argued that the penalty provisions were poorly worded and that the maximum penalty was €125. On that interpretation, they argued, the settlement fell below the statutory threshold for publication. The proposed case would have sought to restrain publication or obtain an early decision on the issue.
The judge’s decision addressed only whether the plaintiffs could proceed anonymously. He said the constitutional requirement to administer justice in public generally includes making the parties’ identities public. He found that privacy in tax affairs did not provide sufficient grounds to displace that requirement, and that the claimed disadvantage of being identified while trying to prevent publication did not establish a right to sue anonymously.
The court therefore refused permission to proceed under assumed names. The judgment did not determine whether the Revenue’s interpretation of the tax legislation was correct, or whether publication of the settlement was required.