The High Court has refused a judicial review challenging Revenue’s seizure of mineral oil and an oil tanker after finding that the company had an available statutory route to contest forfeiture and that the investigation afforded a fair opportunity to respond.
Mr Justice McDermott delivered the judgment on 12 May 2016. HAZ.COM Fuels Ltd and its director, Michael Murphy, had sought to quash Revenue’s decision to seize the oil, tanker and truck, and challenged the legal basis for the seizure. The court refused the application. It did not decide the pending condemnation proceedings or make a final order that the goods were forfeited.
The case followed a stop on the M9 in County Carlow on 21 June 2014. Gardaí found that the truck and tanker displayed inconsistent hazard markings. Murphy could not produce delivery documents for the load, which was being taken to a customer in Oldcastle, County Meath. Revenue later detained about 36,000 litres of mineral oil and the tanker, then seized them on 18 July, citing suspected breaches of rules governing delivery documentation.
Murphy and the company argued that seizure required a prior criminal conviction and that they had not been given notice or a chance to make representations. They also disputed the statutory basis for the action. Revenue argued that the law allowed seizure and civil condemnation proceedings without a criminal conviction, and that Murphy had been questioned about the missing documents.
The judge found that the company had standing to challenge the seizure of the oil and tanker, but Murphy had no standing to challenge the truck seizure; the company also had no standing in relation to the truck. The judgment noted that Murphy disclaimed ownership and that the vehicle’s provenance remained unexplained.
The court held that the statutory provisions did not require a criminal conviction before goods could be seized or become liable to forfeiture. It also found that Murphy had been asked about the delivery records and had directed Revenue’s officer to a tanker compartment where he said they were kept. The compartment was empty. The judge concluded that the investigation gave him a fair opportunity to address the issue.
Revenue had treated the applicants’ correspondence as a claim under the statutory process and began condemnation proceedings in Kilkenny Circuit Court. The judge accepted that the applicants had not intended to make such a claim, but found they had declined to use the statutory claim and hearing procedure. He refused judicial review on that basis as well as on the merits of the procedural challenge. The Circuit Court condemnation proceedings remained pending; the High Court’s decision was to refuse judicial review.