The Court of Appeal has dismissed Barth O’Neill’s attempt to have judicial review proceedings against the Revenue Commissioners anonymised and heard otherwise than in public.
The proceedings arise from a dispute connected with O’Neill’s 2007 capital gains tax return. Earlier tax disputes were settled in 2016 and 2020, with Revenue agreeing to treat certain income tax and capital gains tax balances as uncollectable.
O’Neill later asked Revenue to delete information concerning those liabilities from its records under the GDPR. Revenue refused in February 2021 and told him he could complain to the Data Protection Commission. He instead obtained leave to bring judicial review proceedings in May 2021.
The privacy applications came much later. O’Neill sought anonymisation about 17 months after starting the case and later sought an order that the proceedings be heard otherwise than in public about 29 months after commencement.
The High Court refused both applications. The Court of Appeal upheld that decision on 26 January 2026.
Mr Justice Collins said justice is normally administered in public and that a party seeking an exception must establish an entitlement to one. O’Neill had provided no adequate explanation for his delay in seeking the privacy measures.
The court also noted that the proceedings had already existed for more than four and a half years and had repeatedly been conducted in public. Two written High Court judgments had already been delivered. In those circumstances, a later anonymity order would largely be futile.
Ms Justice Whelan agreed and said the delay could also amount to acquiescence or waiver of any entitlement O’Neill might otherwise have had. Ms Justice Pilkington also agreed.
The appeal was therefore dismissed and the High Court order refusing anonymisation and an in-camera hearing was affirmed. The underlying judicial review proceedings concerning Revenue’s handling of O’Neill’s tax information were not decided by this judgment.