The High Court has struck out proceedings by Thomas Farrell and Thomas Farrell & Sons (Garages) Limited challenging a tax settlement with the Revenue Commissioners, finding that the 2020 claim was statute barred and that the delay made a fair trial impossible.
Mr Justice Kennedy delivered judgment on 30 September 2024 after hearing applications from the plaintiffs and Revenue. The plaintiffs sought declarations that their claim could proceed to trial; Revenue sought to strike it out or stay it. Ireland and the Attorney General were also named as respondents.
The plaintiffs sought to rescind two settlement agreements made in 1995 and recover IR£136,553 and IR£364,812, with interest. They also claimed damages for negligence, misrepresentation, breach of duty and contract. They alleged the settlement followed Revenue demands based on a bank account they said was not theirs, and that tax clearance certificates were used as pressure. They further claimed Revenue had agreed to provide a breakdown of the calculation but failed to do so. Revenue denied the allegations.
The judge reviewed records of the 1994 audit and the settlement negotiations. Those records showed that Farrell and his advisers initiated discussions and proposed a settlement. The judge said he could not determine who owned the disputed bank accounts or what the tax liability should have been in 1995. He found no evidence or properly particularised allegation that Revenue had acted fraudulently or concealed a cause of action.
The court held that the contract and tort claims were brought outside the applicable six-year limitation period. The alleged breach of the claimed “Payment Condition” was known at the time, and the alleged loss occurred when settlement money was paid. The judge said the plaintiffs knew, or could with reasonable diligence have known, enough to bring proceedings well before 2020. Their access to Revenue files years later did not extend the limitation period.
The judge also found that the passage of time prevented a fair trial. The Revenue officer who conducted the audit had died, other witnesses might no longer be available, and the alleged payment condition was not recorded in contemporaneous documents. He said the proceedings would be dismissed on that basis even if they had been brought within time.
Separately, the judge concluded that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, was an abuse of process or was bound to fail. He directed the plaintiffs to pay Revenue’s costs of the applications and proceedings, subject to any further submissions on costs within 21 days.