The Court of Appeal has dismissed two appeals by Cecelia Onyenemezu against summary judgments for tax liabilities, after allowing the Collector General to introduce affidavits explaining discrepancies in the amounts claimed.
The appeals concerned PAYE/PRSI arrears and income tax arrears for the years ending December 2015 and December 2016. On 12 February 2024, the High Court granted summary judgment for €225,401.42 plus costs in the PAYE/PRSI proceedings and €150,790.27 plus costs in the income tax proceedings.
Onyenemezu argued that the claims had not been sufficiently particularised under Order 4, rule 4 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. She pointed to differences between the amounts in tax notices and the sums claimed in the proceedings. She said the discrepancies had not been explained and left her unable to identify the case she had to meet.
The Collector General accepted that discrepancies existed and sought permission to rely on affidavits from Revenue officer John Cross. In the PAYE/PRSI proceedings, Cross attributed the difference to payments of €8,740 and €2,285.07, credited against the 2015 liability. The court heard that the first payment came from a €75,000 cheque assigned among older tax debts, and that the second followed a notice of attachment. Cross said no contemporaneous correspondence had been sent explaining the allocation.
In the income tax proceedings, Cross attributed an €11 reduction to a VAT claim that was offset against the appellant’s income tax liabilities. The judgment refers to a letter explaining the adjustment.
The Court of Appeal considered the rules governing fresh evidence on appeal, including the fact that the evidence could have been obtained for the High Court hearing. It noted that appeals from summary judgments may allow some additional flexibility, while emphasising the importance of finality. The court also considered that the appellant did not challenge Cross’s credibility, accepted that his evidence could answer the objections, and advanced no other ground to resist the claims.
MacGrath J granted leave in both appeals to admit Cross’s affidavits, sworn on 14 May 2024. He concluded that the affidavits explained the deficiencies in particularisation and dismissed both appeals. The court did not determine costs in the judgment: it invited written submissions within 21 days, after which the cases would be listed for mention to finalise the issue.