Legal Research
Cases
Brown v Commissioner of Inland Revenue

Brown v Commissioner of Inland Revenue

Case [2011] NZCA 293 24 June 2011

Limitation Periods

Costs

Stay of Proceedings

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA127/2011
[2011] NZCA 293

BETWEEN THOMAS JOSEPH BROWN
Appellant

AND COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
Respondent

Court: Chambers, Ellen France and Stevens JJ

Counsel: Appellant in person
P W O'Regan for Respondent

Judgment: 24 June 2011 at 12 pm

JUDMGENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is struck out.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Chambers J)

Thomas Brown, the appellant, filed a notice of appeal on 9 March 2011. The Registrar fixed security for costs in the sum of $5,560. Mr Brown was required to pay security by 6 April 2011, but did not do so by that date or subsequently. He did not apply to the Registrar under r 35(6) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 for a reduction in or dispensation with security.
The Commissioner of Inland Revenue, the respondent, filed an application to strike out the appeal for failure to pay security for costs. Mr Brown then decided to abandon his appeal.
He refused to file a formal abandonment under r 44. That leaves us with no alternative but to strike out the appeal on the Commissioner’s application.
The Commissioner sought costs. We have decided not to make any order for costs. Mr Brown is bankrupt, and owes Inland Revenue more than three quarters of a million dollars. The Commissioner had to do little work on the appeal. He did have to file the application to strike out, but no appearance on that application was required. It seems rather pointless to increase Mr Brown’s indebtedness to Inland Revenue in the circumstances.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

Details

AGLC: Brown v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2011] NZCA 293
Case: [2011] NZCA 293
Decision Date: 24 June 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the appeal filed by Thomas Joseph Brown against the Commissioner of Inland Revenue, the appellant, Mr Brown, failed to meet the security for costs requirement within the specified timeframe. The appeal was initiated on 9 March 2011, with the Registrar setting the security amount at $5,560, due by 6 April 2011. Mr Brown did not pay the required security by the due date or at any subsequent time, nor did he apply for a reduction or exemption of the security under rule 35(6) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005. The Commissioner of Inland Revenue subsequently filed an application to have the appeal struck out due to Mr Brown's failure to comply with the security for costs directive.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-compliance with the security for costs requirement. The court considered the relevant rules and Mr Brown's failure to meet the conditions set forth. The court also examined the implications of Mr Brown's bankruptcy and his significant outstanding debt to Inland Revenue. The court noted that while the Commissioner had to file an application to strike out the appeal, no further action was required on the Commissioner's part.

The court found that Mr Brown's failure to pay the security for costs mandated the striking out of the appeal as per the Commissioner's application. The court acknowledged the Commissioner's minimal involvement in the proceedings but opted not to award costs against Mr Brown, considering his financial situation and the substantial debt owed to Inland Revenue. The court's decision was based on the strict adherence to procedural rules and the impracticality of increasing Mr Brown's existing debt in the given circumstances.

Orders