The Court of Appeal has dismissed Brian Murphy’s appeal against the rejection of his judicial review challenge to revenue prosecutions. The court held that a 2015 settlement concerning specified tax arrears did not amount to a clear promise that prosecutions would stop or not be brought.
Murphy had argued that the settlement he signed with the Revenue Commissioners on 31 August 2015 created a legitimate expectation that enforcement action would not be taken, existing prosecutions would not continue and no new prosecutions would begin. He sought prohibition of prosecutions arising from summonses issued in February 2014 and October 2015.
The settlement set out payments towards income tax for 2013 and VAT arrears for January and February 2015. It said legal proceedings relating to those taxes would be suspended on the agreed terms and that proceedings would resume if the arrangement broke down. It did not address other prosecutions. The Director of Public Prosecutions was not a party to the settlement.
The February 2014 prosecution concerned an alleged VAT refund claim made on behalf of a company of which Murphy had been a director. The October 2015 summonses concerned alleged revenue offences relating to income tax returns for 2008 to 2012. The appeal judgment stressed that those matters were separate from the tax liabilities covered by the settlement.
Murphy said that during a telephone call shortly before signing, a Revenue solicitor’s legal executive had told him she would revise the agreement to remove wording preserving the Revenue’s prosecution rights, subject to approval. The legal executive disputed that account. The High Court judge found, on the balance of probabilities, that she had not said she would seek approval for an agreement barring prosecution. The Court of Appeal said there was material supporting that finding and that it was bound by it.
The appeal court also concluded that the settlement’s silence about prosecution could not reasonably be read as an unambiguous promise to halt ongoing proceedings or prevent future prosecutions. It noted that criminal proceedings were already under way when the settlement was signed, and that Murphy did not then move to end the related judicial review proceedings, despite judgment being reserved.
The court upheld the High Court’s rejection of the claim, whether framed as breach of contract, legitimate expectation or both, and dismissed the appeal. It did not make a new order prohibiting the prosecutions.