The Supreme Court made no order on John Hanrahan’s application concerning a Revenue Commissioners’ notice of attachment, ruling that there was no proper proceeding before either the High Court or the Supreme Court.
In a judgment delivered on 7 February 2014, Mr Justice Fennelly said the procedure was “fundamentally irregular and flawed”. The court said Hanrahan had not commenced judicial review proceedings or any other proceedings in the High Court, so there was no existing case in which an order could be made.
Hanrahan had appeared before the High Court on 5 December 2013 seeking an interim stay of a notice of attachment issued by the Revenue Commissioners to the Department of Agriculture on 14 October 2013. The notice concerned any Single Payments that might be due to him. He submitted an affidavit and documents about his dealings with the Revenue Commissioners over his tax affairs.
The High Court refused the interim relief. The judge’s note described the application as part of a request for leave to seek to quash the notice, but the Supreme Court said the High Court order referred only to a motion for interim relief. Hanrahan had not filed the statement required to begin a judicial review application, and his affidavit did not indicate that he was seeking an order to quash the notice through judicial review.
The Supreme Court also noted that the application for interim relief had been made ex parte, without notice to the Revenue Commissioners. Hanrahan later appealed the High Court order. The Revenue Commissioners were then put on notice, and their counsel was heard in reply.
The Supreme Court held that, because no proper proceeding had been initiated in the High Court, there was no proper notice of appeal before it. It said complaints about the regularity of Revenue Commissioners’ procedures would have to be pursued in appropriate proceedings. The court made no order on the application; it did not determine the merits of those complaints or the validity of the attachment notice.