Quigley v Revenue Commissioners & Anor (Approved) [2023] IEHC 244 (10 May 2023)

Quigley v Revenue Commissioners & Anor (Approved) [2023] IEHC 244 (10 May 2023)

The refusal by Revenue and the Tax Appeal Commissioner to disclose the names and interview details of the 44 customers does not breach the applicant’s right to fair procedures or constitutional justice, as the information sought originates from the applicant’s own records and is within his knowledge; the burden of proof remains with the applicant to demonstrate compliance with statutory requirements; public interest privilege applies; the Commissioner’s directions were lawful and proportionate.

Citation
[2023] IEHC 244
Parties
Applicant: Michael Quigley; First Respondent: Revenue Commissioners; Second Respondent: Tax Appeal Commission
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
10 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Application for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Excise Duty, Value Added Tax, Disclosure, Fair Procedures, Burden of Proof, Judicial Review, Statutory Interpretation
Tax Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law European Human Rights Law Excise Duty Value Added Tax Disclosure Fair Procedures +3 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Quigley

Applicant

Revenue Commissioners

First Respondent

Tax Appeal Commission

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether refusal to disclose customer interview details breaches fair procedures and constitutional justice
  2. 2 Whether Tax Appeal Commissioner erred in refusing to direct disclosure
  3. 3 Whether applicant is entitled to information under Article 6 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The refusal by Revenue and the Tax Appeal Commissioner to disclose the names and interview details of the 44 customers does not breach the applicant’s right to fair procedures or constitutional justice, as the information sought originates from the applicant’s own records and is within his knowledge; the burden of proof remains with the applicant to demonstrate compliance with statutory requirements; public interest privilege applies; the Commissioner’s directions were lawful and proportionate.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review refused

Orders

  • No order of certiorari against Revenue or Commissioner
  • No direction for disclosure of customer interview details