Mennolly Homes Ltd v Appeal Commissioners

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Charleton
• Judgment Date: 09 March 2010
• Neutral Citation: [2010] IEHC 56
• Court: High Court
• Date: 09 March 2010

[2010] IEHC 56

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 723 J.R./2009]

Mennolly Homes Ltd v Appeal Commissioners & Revenue Commissioners

JUDICIAL REVIEW

BETWEEN

MENNOLLY HOMES LIMITED

APPLICANT

AND

THE APPEAL COMMISSIONERS AND THE REVENUE COMMISSIONERS

RESPONDENTS

VEOLIA WATER v FINGAL CO COUNCIL UNREP CLARKE 22.6.2006 2006/57/12085 2006 IEHC 240

1 JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Charleton delivered on 9th day of March, 2010

2 1. This judgment is a supplement to my judgment of 26 ^th February, 2010. In that case I found against the applicants in respect of all of the arguments that were advanced in this judicial review proceeding. The applicant persuasively argues that only a portion of the costs should be awarded to the Revenue Commissioners, who argued the case on behalf of the respondents, the Appeal Commissioners taking no part as is customary. The argument is eloquently advanced on the basis that the judgment of the court clarifies the law on important issues as to the jurisdiction of the appeal commissioners when hearing a V.A.T. appeal, and other forms of taxation appeal. For the Revenue Commissioners it is argued that this is a large commercial judicial review case, not a case brought on in the general interests of the public, and that in consequence costs must follow the event. Whereas other points were also raised by the respondent in relation to the lateness of issues argued before the appeal commissioners, and whether judicial review of the initial tax assessment should properly have been taken six years ago, these arguments were merely supplemental.

3 2. I feel that I am bound to follow the decision of Clarke J. in Veolia Water v. Fingal County Council, [2006] IEHC 240. As is the case in relation to asylum law applications, an attempt should be made by judges hearing the same kinds of issues to adopt similar principles. This is particularly so if points of law have been previously argued and are the subject of a relevant written decision. There can be a reason to depart from such a decision, but in doing so I would have to state why I find a prior decision unpersuasive. Here, there is no doubt that the complex issues involved in this difficult case were aided markedly by the argument advanced on behalf of the applicant and answered in detail by the respondent. It is attractive to suppose that, in those circumstances, the public...