The Revenue Commissioners have secured a High-Court order restraining a Co Wicklow businessman, whom the Revenue suspect has absconded to Australia, from reducing his assets here below €1.145 million.

In legal proceedings, the revenue is seeking judgment against Hugh Hannigan Senior, with an address at Iona, Ballyknockan, Blessington, Co Wicklow, for alleged unpaid tax, VAT and interest in the amount of €1.145 million. The revenue claims Mr Hannigan had a "core involvement" in a suspected tax-evasion scheme.

In seeking the order preventing Mr Hannigan from reducing or disposing of assets below €1.145 million, counsel for the revenue said yesterday they believed Mr Hannigan has substantial assets here and appeared to be seeking to dispose of them.

Mr Justice O'Sullivan was told that Mr Hannigan's solicitor had arranged for counsel to attend court yesterday but that there were no instructions from Mr Hannigan in relation to the revenue application.

After hearing of a number of unsuccessful efforts to serve legal documents on Hugh Hannigan Junior, son of the defendant, Mr Justice O'Sullivan said Mr Hannigan Junior was evading service. The judge deemed that Mr Hannigan Senior had been served with the proceedings and he granted the order sought. The restraining order arose after revenue inquiries last year into the affairs of a number of companies with which Mr Hannigan was allegedly involved.

The revenue claims Mr Hannigan was involved in a bogus scheme to extract funds from a company. It has alleged he was paid a substantial consultancy fee for that alleged involvement, which he did not declare for income-tax purposes or VAT.

Last year, the revenue served notices of assessment for income tax and VAT, together with interest, in the sum of €1.145 million on Mr Hannigan. No appeal was brought against those notices within the prescribed time limits and the revenue said no contact was made by Mr Hannigan with regard to the tax due under the assessments. Letters of demand were then issued and legal proceedings initiated.

After searches by the revenue, it said it had found a number of properties and lands registered in the name of the defendant. After further inquiries, the revenue feared some properties were in the process of being sold.