The Court of Appeal has dismissed two appeals by John Hanrahan against the High Court’s refusal to halt Revenue matters and restrain tax enforcement measures. The appeals concerned applications made in separate proceedings; the court upheld the High Court orders of 21 December 2016.
In the first application, Hanrahan sought to stay “all Revenue matters” until he recovered from cancer surgery or treatment. He also asked the court to compel Revenue to respond to correspondence. The Court of Appeal said the proposed stay was indefinite and far wider than a postponement of particular court proceedings. Hanrahan had not provided sufficiently clear medical evidence about his ability to take part in litigation or when he might be able to resume it. The court said the High Court was entitled to refuse the stay, taking account of the balance of justice and Revenue’s statutory duties to collect tax. It also upheld the refusal to order Revenue to answer correspondence outside the issues being determined in the proceedings.
The second appeal concerned an injunction application relating to attachment measures and tax demands. Hanrahan sought to prevent the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Marine from paying Revenue €50,535.12 from his Single Farm Payment for 2016, and to prevent enforcement of a demand for €209,311.45. He also sought orders striking out an attachment and directing that appeals be heard by an Appeal Commissioner.
The Court of Appeal applied the principles governing interlocutory injunctions. It found that Hanrahan had not established a fair issue to be tried: his evidence referred to possible future credits arising from other litigation but did not explain how they affected the demands or entitled him to stop Revenue’s statutory enforcement. The court said tax demands had to be challenged through the statutory mechanisms, subject to routes including judicial review or a case stated. It also concluded that the balance of convenience would not favour an injunction and that some of the requested orders were final orders that could not lawfully be granted on an interlocutory application.
The court noted that the Minister had held the payment after learning of Hanrahan’s challenge to the attachment and could not pay the funds to him once served with the notice. The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals. It did not determine the underlying tax liability in these appeals.