Judgment: 2015-11-11 · Court archive

High Court orders Dublin District Court to hear Garuda tax summonses after jurisdiction ruling overturned

High Court · [2015] IEHC 688

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Garuda Limited
  • Michael Lowry
What

High Court orders Dublin District Court to hear Garuda tax summonses after jurisdiction ruling overturned

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • The Gables, Torquay Road, Foxrock, Dublin 18
  • Abbey Road, Thurles, County Tipperary
  • Dublin Metropolitan District Court
  • County Tipperary
  • Dublin
  • High Court
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Garuda argued that because its registered office had moved by the time the summonses first came before Dublin Metropolitan District Court on January 29, the Dublin judge had no jurisdiction over the two Tipperary matters.

The High Court has ordered the Dublin District Court to deal with three tax prosecutions against Garuda Limited after overturning a decision that the court lacked jurisdiction.

Three summonses alleging offences under the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 were issued on December 10, 2013. At that time Garuda’s registered office was at The Gables, Torquay Road, Foxrock, Dublin 18.

Later that month, company secretary Michael Lowry signed a form changing the registered office to Abbey Road, Thurles, County Tipperary. The change became effective on January 13, 2014, three days before Gardaí served the summonses at the former Dublin address.

Two summonses concerned alleged offences committed in County Tipperary in 2003. A third concerned an alleged 2007 offence in Dublin.

Garuda argued that because its registered office had moved by the time the summonses first came before Dublin Metropolitan District Court on January 29, the Dublin judge had no jurisdiction over the two Tipperary matters.

The District Judge accepted that argument and declined jurisdiction over the proceedings.

The DPP sought judicial review. Mr Justice Noonan held that the key point was when jurisdiction was invoked under the particular statutory procedure used to commence the prosecutions.

Under the Courts (No. 3) Act 1986, proceedings can be commenced administratively by the issue of a summons. Relying on earlier Supreme Court authority, the High Court held that this procedure invokes the District Court’s jurisdiction when the summons issues.

Garuda was resident in Dublin through its registered office on December 10, 2013. Its later change of address therefore did not remove jurisdiction already established.

The court also found no valid basis for declining jurisdiction over the separate 2007 summons concerning an alleged Dublin offence.

The High Court quashed the District Judge’s ruling and directed him to assume jurisdiction and deal with all three prosecutions. The judgment did not determine whether Garuda committed any of the alleged tax offences.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review