Harrahill -v- Swaine [2015] IECA 36 (13 February 2015)

Harrahill -v- Swaine [2015] IECA 36 (13 February 2015)

The defendant could not credibly advance a bona fide defence based on any agreement other than the repayment agreement, which required ongoing tax compliance; no enforceable stand-alone agreement existed as the alleged promise lacked consideration; promissory estoppel did not apply; summary judgment should have been granted.

Citation
[2015] IECA 36
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Gerard Harrahill; Defendant/respondent: Eoin Swaine
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
13 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Order Adjourning Summary Summons Proceedings for Plenary Hearing
Outcome
Appeal allowed; summary judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Consideration, Promissory Estoppel, Tax Recovery, Repayment Agreements
Contract Law Tax Law Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Consideration Promissory Estoppel Tax Recovery Repayment Agreements

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gerard Harrahill

Plaintiff/appellant

Eoin Swaine

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Order Adjourning Summary Summons Proceedings for Plenary Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant had a bona fide defence to summary judgment based on an alleged repayment agreement or promissory estoppel
  2. 2 Whether correspondence constituted a binding agreement enforceable against the Revenue Commissioners
  3. 3 Whether consideration existed for any alleged agreement to forbear proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant could not credibly advance a bona fide defence based on any agreement other than the repayment agreement, which required ongoing tax compliance; no enforceable stand-alone agreement existed as the alleged promise lacked consideration; promissory estoppel did not apply; summary judgment should have been granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; summary judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff.

Orders

  • Summary judgment entered for €1,662,288.01 plus interest against the defendant.
  • Proceedings not referred to plenary hearing.