Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Bell

[2013] NZHC 849

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND MASTERTON REGISTRY

CIV-2012-435-239 [2013] NZHC 849

IN THE MATTER OF     the Insolvency Act 2006

AND

IN THE MATTER OF      the bankruptcy of ANNA BALASOGLOU BELL

BETWEEN  THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Judgment Creditor

ANDANNA BALASOGLOU BELL Judgment Debtor

(Heard at Wellington)

Counsel:         J.M. Snelson - Counsel for the Judgment Creditor

P. Davidson - Counsel for Judgment Debtor

Judgment:      22 April 2013

ORAL JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE D.I. GENDALL

Solicitors:           Inland Revenue Department, PO Box 1462, Wellington

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE V AB BELL HC MAS CIV-2012-435-239 [22 April 2013]

[1]      Before the Court is an application by the judgment creditor seeking an order that the judgment debtor be adjudicated bankrupt.

[2]      This is the second call of this matter.

[3]      Although no formal Notice of Opposition to the present application has been filed, as I understand the position the judgment debtor seeks an adjournment of this matter for some weeks for two purposes:

(a)      The first is to endeavour to make some progress with the instruction of chartered accountants who have been engaged to complete outstanding accounts and returns for the judgment debtor dating back some  5  or  6  years.    The  core  debt  in  question  sought  from  the judgment debtor, as I understand it, relates to default assessments of tax and GST relating back some years.

(b)The   second   reason   advanced   in   support   of   the   adjournment application is to provide some time to enable the judgment debtor to either refinance an existing mortgage held over a property she herself owns, or to obtain some family assistance to at least settle the original

$43,000.00 odd debt which is outstanding to the Commissioner.

[4]      As an aside at this point, I note that a solicitor’s certificate provided today by counsel for the judgment creditor shows the judgment debtor’s present debt with penalties and interest at a figure of $50,658.49.

[5]      Notwithstanding this, Ms Davidson for the judgment debtor as I understand the position indicated today that, in light of the amount which is claimed against her client, there is a degree of confidence that arrangements can be made for this to be settled within a period of 4 or 6 weeks.

[6]      This would it seems be without prejudice to the claim that once final accounts and returns are completed by the judgment debtor’s accountants, the true debt due to the Commissioner might well be adjusted.

[7]      Notwithstanding this, there does seem to me to be a good possibility, from comments which Ms Davidson has advanced to the Court today, that Ms Bell’s debt to the Commissioner, relating back as it does to the District Court judgment obtained against her in September 2012, might well be settled in this period of 4 or 6 weeks, if time is allowed for this to occur.

[8]      That said, I am prepared to grant an adjournment of this matter on that basis for a period of 4 weeks and then to ascertain the position at that time.

[9]      This matter is therefore adjourned to a call at 10.00 am on 20 May 2013 to review the position concerning the judgment debtor’s attempts to arrange funds to clear the debt at that point.

[10]     I reach this view also on the basis that Ms Davidson advises the Court that Ms Bell she intimates did not appear to be the principal player in this matter.  She advises the Court that Ms Bell has dyslexia and throughout has been entirely reliant on a co-debtor, Mr Michael Charles Lockhart, for all matters concerning these taxation debts which have accumulated on her behalf.

[11]     Once again I repeat that for all the reasons outlined above, this matter is adjourned to a call at 10.00 am on 20 May 2013.

‘Associate Judge D.I. Gendall’