Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Hello all,

For those interested in Harris v Quigley, which Brian has brought to our attention, it is available online.

Its importance lies in the fact that it answers many of the questions left open by the High Court in the very similar Bank of Ireland Trust Services v Revenue Commissioners litigation ((No1) [2002] 4 IR 187; [2003] 2 ILRM 241 (Kelly J); (No2) [2003] 3 IR 398 (Kelly J)) and not addressed by the Supreme Court in In re Article 26 and the Health (Amendment) (No2) Bill 2004 [2005] IESC 7 (16 February 2005) (a case which stands as extreme example of the recovery of unlawfully exacted public charges).

In particular, in Harris v Quigley, Gilligan J held that although the relevant statutory provisions did not give the plaintiff any statutory entitlement to restitution of the sum claimed, neither did they exclude an entitlement to restitution at common law; and, following Woolwich (as received in Irish law in O'Rourke v Revenue Commissioners [1996] 2 IR 1 (Keane J)) he held that the plaintiffs were entitled to such restitution. I assume that the traditional second stage about interest will now follow.

All the best,

Eoin.

PS1 I agree with Brian that, unfortunately, Gilligan J's decision does not appear to have anything to do with U2!

PS2 O'Rourke does not seem to be available electronically, but both the first and the second stages of the Bank of Ireland Trust litigation are, as is the Supreme Court decision in the Health (Amendment) Bill case.

PS3 Those who are interested in the questions raised in the earlier cases might like to look at: O'Dell "Interesting Times. Restitution, Overpaid Taxes, and Compound Interest" (2005) 27 Dublin University Law Journal (new series) 344 (on Bank of Ireland Trust Services (No1)); O'Dell "Restitution. Debt and Taxes" (2002) 24 Dublin University Law Journal (new series) 295 (on Bank of Ireland Trust Services (No2)); and O'Dell and Whyte "Is this a Country for Old Men and Women? – In re Article 26 and the Health (Amendment) (No 2) Bill 2004" (2005) 27 Dublin University Law Journal (new series) 369 (on the Supreme Court decision in the Health (Amendment) Bill case).

All the best,

Eoin.

Quoting Brian Conroy:

I thought people interested in Irish law might like to be informed of the recent Irish High Court decision of Gilligan J. in Harris v. Quigley and Irwin (18th March, 2005), which is an interesting application of the Woolwich decision in the context of a €9.1 million claim for a tax refund. It seems to me to be one of the most important Irish decisions on unjust enrichment.

It does not appear to have anything to do with U2 though.