Judgment: 2026-03-19 · Court archive

Court of Appeal rejects Gorden Transport claim to three trucks seized over €768,000 tax debt

Court of Appeal · [2026] IECA 43

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Gorden Transport Limited
  • Tom Kane Motors Limited
  • Mr Justice Allen
What

Court of Appeal rejects Gorden Transport claim to three trucks seized over €768,000 tax debt

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Irish Machinery Auctions
  • High Court
  • Court of Appeal
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The Court of Appeal rejected those arguments. It held that there had been no evidence in the interpleader hearing establishing a sale or the claimed electronic payments. An affidavit filed in separate plenary proceedings was not evidence in the interpleader trial, where the ownership claim was contested and oral evidence was expected.

The Court of Appeal has dismissed two appeals by Gorden Transport Limited over three trucks seized by Revenue at Irish Machinery Auctions in Kildare in February 2024.

Mr Justice Allen delivered judgment on 19 March 2026, with Ms Justice Faherty and Ms Justice Pilkington agreeing.

Tom Kane Motors Limited owed €768,002.88 in taxes on 19 February 2024. Revenue identified three 232-D registered trucks — two Volvos and one MAN — registered in that company's name at the auction premises and directed their seizure the following day.

Gorden Transport then claimed ownership, saying it had bought the vehicles from Tom Kane Motors in September 2023 for €271,044.03. It relied on two invoices and asserted that the purchase price had been paid by electronic transfers.

The competing ownership claims led to High Court interpleader proceedings. When the case came for trial in October 2025, Gorden Transport's intended legal representatives withdrew and the company produced no evidence supporting its ownership claim.

The High Court subsequently declared that Gorden Transport was not the legal or beneficial owner and that Tom Kane Motors was the registered and legal owner when the trucks were seized. A separate application by Gorden Transport seeking their return and damages fell away once ownership had been determined against it.

On appeal, Gorden Transport challenged the treatment of the evidence, the significance of vehicle registration and the interpleader orders.

The Court of Appeal rejected those arguments. It held that there had been no evidence in the interpleader hearing establishing a sale or the claimed electronic payments. An affidavit filed in separate plenary proceedings was not evidence in the interpleader trial, where the ownership claim was contested and oral evidence was expected.

The court also held that the finding against Gorden Transport on beneficial ownership necessarily defeated its application for an injunction or return of the trucks.

Both appeals were dismissed on all grounds.

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