Desmond O'Sullivan v Revenue Commissioners

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice Mark Sanfey
Judgment Date19 March 2021
Neutral Citation[2021] IEHC 193
Date19 March 2021
Docket Number[Record No. 2019/299 R]
CourtHigh Court

In the Matter of a Case Stated Pursuant to Section 949AQ of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 (As Amended)

Between
Desmond O'Sullivan
Appellant
and
Revenue Commissioners
Respondent

[2021] IEHC 193

[Record No. 2019/299 R]

THE HIGH COURT

Costs – Interests of justice – Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 – Respondent seeking costs – Whether costs should follow the event

Facts: The High Court (Sanfey J), on 22nd February, 2021, gave judgment in a matter which concerned a case stated for the opinion of the court pursuant to s. 949AQ of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 in relation to a determination by a Tax Commissioner of 11th October, 2019 in an appeal by the appellant, Mr O’Sullivan: [2021] IEHC 118. The respondent, the Revenue Commissioners, applied for an order for the costs of the proceedings to date, to be adjudicated in default of agreement. The respondent submitted that it had been entirely successful in its appeal, and that there were no relevant matters which would justify a departure from the usual rule that costs follow the event. The respondent therefore submitted that it was entitled to its costs of the proceedings. The appellant submitted that the imposition of a costs order against him could lead to a precedent which could dissuade aggrieved appellants from appealing their cases and this could result in miscarriages of justice arising which would be particularly unsavoury given that tax appeals before the Court often succeed in overturning errant Tax Appeal determinations. The appellant stressed that the awarding of costs is entirely at the discretion of the Court and that the interests of justice required in this case that no order be made in relation to costs. The appellant made the case that the respondent’s entitlement to statutory interest accrues from the date the tax was due for payment until the date the tax liability is discharged, and that this, together with the possibility of a penalty which the respondent has power to impose results in a significant sanction on the appellant. In all the circumstances, the appellant submitted that the appropriate costs order was that no order be made for costs.

Held by Sanfey J that while he appreciated that the appellant was aggrieved at the manner in which the Tax Appeals Commission (TAC) hearing was conducted, he had been entirely unsuccessful in establishing that the Commissioner erred in law in the manner in which he conducted the appeal. Sanfey J found that the TAC had been vindicated in relation to the manner in which the Commissioner conducted the appeal, and the respondent had been forced to incur the cost of contesting the case stated. While there may well be cases in which the issues are finely balanced and require careful consideration as to their legal merits, Sanfey J considered in this case that the justice of the case did not require that the appellant be spared having a costs order made against him. Sanfey J did not think that any of the factors set out at s. 169(1) of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 were engaged sufficiently to justify a departure from the principle set out in that section that costs follow the event. In Sanfey J’s view it would be unjust in this case if the respondent were compelled to bear its own costs of the case stated.

Sanfey J held that there would be an order of the court affirming the determination of the Commissioner pursuant to s. 949AR(1)(a) of the 1997 Act, and an order for the costs of the proceedings in favour of the respondent, to be adjudicated in default of agreement.

Costs to respondent.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Mark Sanfey delivered on the 19th day of March 2021.

1

On 22nd February, 2021, I gave judgment in the above matter (‘the substantive judgment’), which concerned a case stated for the opinion of the court pursuant to s.949AQ of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 (‘ TCA’) in relation to a determination by a Tax Commissioner of 11th October, 2019 in an appeal by the appellant. That judgment is reported at [2021] IEHC 118, and should be read in conjunction with the present ruling.

2

At the conclusion of the substantive judgment, I indicated that I would give the parties fourteen days from the date of the judgment to make brief submissions as to the form of the orders to be made, and in particular...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 firm's commentaries
  • Costs Risk In Appeals From The Irish Tax Appeals Commission
    • Ireland
    • Mondaq Ireland
    • 11 May 2021
    ...a 'chilling' effect, deterring aggrieved taxpayers from taking merited cases stated to the High Court; Decision In ruling on costs ([2021] IEHC 193), the Court rejected the taxpayer's arguments, stating that rather than risking a 'chilling' effect, if there was no costs sanction it may beco......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT