Mc L. -v- D. & Anor [2009] IEHC 184 (03 April 2009)

Mc L. -v- D. & Anor [2009] IEHC 184 (03 April 2009)

The freezing order made on 21st July, 2008 under s. 908(8) was properly made as there were reasonable grounds, based on admissible evidence (excluding evidence from the first respondent's laptop), to apprehend that both respondents would move assets to avoid tax liability, satisfying the statutory requirements. The applicant was properly authorised, and s. 908 did not require exhaustion of other statutory avenues. Evidence from the first respondent's laptop was inadmissible as it was not obtained for the purposes of the Criminal Assets Bureau Act 1996, but sufficient other evidence existed to justify the order.

Citation
[2009] IEHC 184
Parties
Applicant: L. McL.; First Respondent: J. D. (otherwise S. D.); Second Respondent: E. D.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
03 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 908 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 / Judgment on Preliminary Issue Regarding Lawfulness of Freezing Order
Outcome
The freezing order made on 21st July, 2008 under s. 908(8) was properly made; preliminary issue determined in favour of the applicant.
Legal Topics
Revenue Powers, Freezing Orders, Admissibility of Evidence, Ultra Vires Actions, Constitutional Rights, Mareva Injunctions
Tax Law Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Revenue Powers Freezing Orders Admissibility of Evidence Ultra Vires Actions Constitutional Rights +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L. McL.

Applicant

J. D. (otherwise S. D.)

First Respondent

E. D.

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Section 908 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 / Judgment on Preliminary Issue Regarding Lawfulness of Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing order under s. 908(8) of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 was lawfully made against the respondents
  2. 2 Whether evidence obtained from the first respondent's laptop was admissible
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was properly authorised to seek a freezing order

Ratio Decidendi

The freezing order made on 21st July, 2008 under s. 908(8) was properly made as there were reasonable grounds, based on admissible evidence (excluding evidence from the first respondent's laptop), to apprehend that both respondents would move assets to avoid tax liability, satisfying the statutory requirements. The applicant was properly authorised, and s. 908 did not require exhaustion of other statutory avenues. Evidence from the first respondent's laptop was inadmissible as it was not obtained for the purposes of the Criminal Assets Bureau Act 1996, but sufficient other evidence existed to justify the order.

Court Disposition

The freezing order made on 21st July, 2008 under s. 908(8) was properly made; preliminary issue determined in favour of the applicant.

Orders

  • Declaration that the freezing order was properly made as of 21st July, 2008 under s. 908(8) of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997