District Court must deal with Lowry firm tax case, judge rules

Independent North Tipperary TD’s company Garuda faces three summonses

A District Court judge must assume jurisdiction in a tax charges case against a company of former communications minister Michael Lowry, the High Court has ruled.

Mr Justice Seamus Noonan said District Judge John O'Neill erred when he declined jurisdiction in May 2014, to deal with summonses against Garuda Ltd whose secretary is the North Tipperary Independent TD, Mr Lowry.

Garuda faces three summonses under the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997, two of which were allegedly committed in Tipperary 2003 and the the third in Dublin in 2007.

Mr Lowry, on December 31st, 2013, signed a form for the Companies Office changing Garuda’s registered address of the Gables, Torquay Road, Foxrock, Dublin, to Abbey Road, Thurles, Co Tipperary.

READ MORE

In Dublin District Court, Garuda argued the company was not resident in Dubin when the case came before the court in January 2014 and therefore Judge O’Neill had no jurisdiction to hear the two summonses related to Tipperary.

The Director of Public Prosections (DPP), who was bringing the tax case, argued Garuda’s registered office was in Dublin when the summonses were issued and, in any event, one of the alleged offences related to Dublin.

Judge O’Neill said the relevant date for determining Garuda’s “residence” was the date the case first came before the court (January 2014), not the date of the issue of the summons.

He concluded he had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

The DPP sought a High Court order quashing that decision.

Mr Justice Seamus Noonan on Wednesday ruled that in relation to the summonses for two Tipperary offences, the District Judge erred in declining jurisdiction.

In relation to the summons for the alleged Dublin offence, it was clear there was “no valid reason” for declining jurisdiction on that even though Garuda had argued the decision in relation to that summons should not be quashed on discretionary grounds, he said. He did not find the reasons advanced for this to be persuasive.

He directed the District Court judge to assume jurisdiction and deal with the summonses.