Howley v Onyenemezu (Unapproved) [2024] IECA 288 (27 November 2024)

Howley v Onyenemezu (Unapproved) [2024] IECA 288 (27 November 2024)

The admitted discrepancies in the amounts claimed were minor, capable of straightforward explanation by payments and adjustments, and did not prejudice the appellant. The requirements of particularisation under O.4, r.4 RSC were satisfied once the fresh evidence was admitted. There being no other grounds of defence, the appeals were dismissed.

Citation
[2024] IECA 288
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Joseph Howley; Defendant/appellant: Cecelia Onyenemezu
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
27 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Particularisation of Claims, Admission of Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Tax Enforcement, Rules of the Superior Courts
Tax Law Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Particularisation of Claims Admission of Fresh Evidence on Appeal Tax Enforcement Rules of the Superior Courts

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Howley

Plaintiff/respondent

Cecelia Onyenemezu

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether discrepancies in the amounts claimed versus notified in tax enforcement proceedings preclude summary judgment
  2. 2 Whether fresh evidence explaining discrepancies should be admitted on appeal
  3. 3 Whether the requirements of particularisation under O.4, r.4 RSC were satisfied

Ratio Decidendi

The admitted discrepancies in the amounts claimed were minor, capable of straightforward explanation by payments and adjustments, and did not prejudice the appellant. The requirements of particularisation under O.4, r.4 RSC were satisfied once the fresh evidence was admitted. There being no other grounds of defence, the appeals were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Leave granted to admit affidavits of Mr John Cross as fresh evidence on appeal
  • Appeals dismissed in both proceedings