The High Court fined Pauraig Kane €25,000 after finding that he failed to meet an undertaking to sell motor vehicles and property and pay the proceeds to the Revenue Commissioners. It declined to activate a six-month prison sentence that had been suspended in 2012.
The ruling followed a Revenue application to lift the suspension on the sentence. Mr Justice Ryan said imprisonment for contempt was a last resort and was not justified in the circumstances. The fine was imposed in lieu of the suspended sentence for the earlier contempt.
Kane had been ordered in 2009 not to dispose of assets covered by a Mareva injunction. He admitted breaching that order at a 2012 hearing. The court then found him in contempt and suspended a six-month prison term on conditions, including clearing vehicles from the Kane’s of Granard premises, stopping the use of third-party cheques and providing information about vehicles there. Kane also undertook to sell nine properties and vehicles and pay proceeds to Revenue.
Revenue argued that he had breached the undertaking and all three conditions. The judge found beyond reasonable doubt that Kane had not complied with his undertaking concerning motor vehicles or land and buildings: he had sold none of the vehicles or properties and had paid no proceeds to Revenue. The court found the vehicle undertaking had been breached, which it said warranted a monetary penalty.
The judge did not find deliberate contempt in relation to the yard-clearance condition. Kane and his wife said their business operated in the lower yard, separated from the showroom and forecourt, and that he did not control the whole area. The court accepted that they had established their business and his activity were located in a separate part of the yard, leaving reasonable doubt about deliberate breach. It also found no proof that Kane used third-party cheques in breach of the order. Although the court expressed unease about the vehicle-listing condition, deliberate breach was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The ruling noted that the property sales could still proceed and that Kane’s solicitors were making progress. It also took account of the time elapsed, Kane’s admission of the original injunction breach and the move of his wife’s business to separate premises. The judgment concerned Kane alone and made no finding about other traders at the site.