The High Court has refused applications by five defendants to strike out Revenue debt collection proceedings, finding that the delay in progressing the claims was justified while related tax appeal proceedings continue.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons delivered the judgment on 22 May 2025 in five related cases brought by Joseph Howley. The claims seek amounts said to be due under Revenue assessments for periods between 2004 and 2014. The defendants, members of the same extended family who work in tarmac contracting, applied to dismiss the cases for want of prosecution under Order 122, rule 11 of the Rules of the Superior Courts.
The court found that about four years passed between the cases being issued in November 2019 and the defendants filing their strike-out motions between November and December 2023, with no significant steps beyond the defendants entering appearances. It held that this was an inordinate delay for summary summons proceedings, but not an inexcusable one.
The defendants had appealed the assessments to the Tax Appeals Commission in April 2016. The Commission initially ruled the appeals inadmissible. In 2020, the Court of Appeal set that ruling aside and sent the matter back for reconsideration. After a further round of judicial review and appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the defendants’ challenge on 9 May 2025. The admissibility question is now to return to the Commission.
Justice Simons said the Commission proceedings were the proper place to resolve whether the tax appeals could proceed. The High Court could not determine that issue within these debt collection cases. He concluded that the related proceedings should be determined first, and that waiting avoided duplicating the dispute and increasing costs.
The judge also considered the balance of justice, although he said it was unnecessary to do so after finding the delay excusable. The defendants had not identified prejudice caused by the delay, and the costs they cited did not arise from it. The court rejected their separate submission that the debt claims were unsustainable because the Court of Appeal had quashed the assessments: the earlier appeal had set aside the Commission’s refusal to admit the tax appeals, not the assessments themselves.
The strike-out applications were refused. The judge’s provisional view was that the plaintiff should recover the costs of each motion from the respective defendant. Defendants wishing to argue for a different costs order were directed to contact the registrar within 14 days; otherwise, an order along the proposed lines would be made. The underlying debt claims remain unresolved pending the parallel proceedings.