Criminal Assets Bureau v. McSweeney [2000] IEHC 44; [2001] 2 ILRM 81 (11th April, 2000)

Criminal Assets Bureau v. McSweeney [2000] IEHC 44; [2001] 2 ILRM 81 (11th April, 2000)

The Plaintiff is entitled to bring proceedings by plenary summons under Section 966; the delay in bringing on the interlocutory application does not breach the Defendant's constitutional rights as much of the delay was at his own request or with his consent; and the High Court has jurisdiction to grant mareva injunctions in such proceedings, including against the Defendant and the Notice Party.

Citation
[2000] IEHC 44
Parties
Plaintiff: Revenue Commissioners; Defendant: Mr. McSweeney; Notice Party: Mrs. McSweeney
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
High Court Plenary Proceedings / Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Interim Mareva Injunction
Outcome
Application to set aside the mareva injunction refused.
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunctions, Jurisdiction of High Court, Locus Standi, Constitutional Rights and Delay, Statutory Interpretation
Civil Procedure Tax Law Equity Mareva Injunctions Jurisdiction of High Court Locus Standi Constitutional Rights and Delay Statutory Interpretation

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Revenue Commissioners

Plaintiff

Mr. McSweeney

Defendant

Mrs. McSweeney

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

High Court Plenary Proceedings / Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Interim Mareva Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff has locus standi to bring proceedings by plenary summons under Section 966 of the Taxes Consolidation Act, 1997
  2. 2 Whether the delay in bringing on an interlocutory application amounts to a breach of the Defendant's constitutional rights
  3. 3 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to grant mareva injunctions generally and in tax recovery proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff is entitled to bring proceedings by plenary summons under Section 966; the delay in bringing on the interlocutory application does not breach the Defendant's constitutional rights as much of the delay was at his own request or with his consent; and the High Court has jurisdiction to grant mareva injunctions in such proceedings, including against the Defendant and the Notice Party.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside the mareva injunction refused.

Orders

  • Mareva injunction to remain in effect against both the Defendant and Mrs. McSweeney.
  • No discharge of the injunction on grounds of delay or lack of jurisdiction.