Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Muir

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2011-404-1132

CIV-2011-404-4197 [2013] NZHC 3459

BETWEEN
THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND

REVENUE Applicant

AND

GARRY ALBERT MUIR Respondent

CIV-2011-404-4713

BETWEEN THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
Applicant

ANDACCENT MANAGEMENT LIMITED First Respondent

ANDBEN NEVIS FORESTRY VENTURES LIMITED
Second Respondent

ANDBRISTOL FORESTRY VENTURE LIMITED
Third Respondent

ANDCLIVE RICHARD BRADBURY Fourth Respondent

ANDGARRY ALBERT MUIR Fifth Respondent

ANDGREGORY ALAN P EEBLES Sixth Respondent

ANDHILLVALE HOLDINGS LIMITED Seventh Respondent

ANDLEXINGTON RESOURCES LIMITED Eighth Respondent

ANDPETER ARNOLD MAUDE Ninth Respondent

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v MUIR [2013] NZHC 3459 [18 December 2013]

AND
REDCLIFFE FORESTRY VENTURE

LIMITED
Tenth Respondent

AND

WAIKATO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES LIMITED Eleventh Respondent

On the Papers

Appearances:

RL Roff and RA Herne for Commissioner of Inland Revenue GA Muir in Person for First and Seventh to Eleventh Respondents in CIV-2011-404-4731

NS Gedye for Second, Third, Fourth and Sixth Respondents in
CIV-2011-404-4731

Judgment:

18 December 2013

JUDGMENT (NO. 2) OF TOOGOOD J [Transfer and Consolidation of proceedings]

This judgment was delivered by me on 18 December 2013 at 2:00 pm
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

[1] In a judgment issued on 31 October 2013 (“the first judgment”),1 I ordered that certain listed proceedings, filed in the Taxation Review Authority, shall be transferred to the Auckland Registry of this Court and consolidated with other proceedings and appeals in this Court.

[2] In making the orders sought, I overlooked further proceedings in the Authority in respect of which transfer and consolidation was sought and which had been listed in an amended originating application for transfer dated
13 February 2012.

[3] For reasons which have not been explained to me, Mr Muir’s memorandum of 4 December 2013 and the Commissioner’s memorandum of 5 December 2013 drawing this oversight to my attention were not provided to me until yesterday. I apologise to the parties for the delay in addressing their helpful suggestions.

[4] Mr Muir sensibly suggests that the proceedings remaining on foot in the Authority also should be transferred to this Court and consolidated with the others. The Commissioner agrees.

[5] Accordingly, I order that the eight relevant notices of claim not covered by the orders made in the first judgment, having Authority reference numbers TRA034/11 to 041/11 inclusive, shall be transferred to the Auckland Registry of this Court and consolidated with the proceedings in this Court referred to in the orders made at [35](b), (c) and (d) in the first judgment.

[6] I further order that the orders made at [35](e) and (f) of the first judgment:

(a) shall be varied to provide that the time for the filing and service of the statements of claim shall be enlarged to 7 February 2014 and the time for the filing and service of statements of defence shall be
enlarged to 18 April 2014; and

1 Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Muir [2013] NZHC 2881.

(b) shall be applied to the proceedings transferred by this judgment.

[7] All proceedings shall be placed in the first available Duty List after

18 April 2014, for Mention.

...............................................

Toogood J

In the case of Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Muir, the Commissioner of Inland Revenue initiated proceedings against several respondents, including Garry Albert Muir and various companies. The disputes related to alleged tax evasion and the imposition of penalties. The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand at Auckland. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Commissioner's actions in transferring and consolidating the proceedings were proper and if the orders for the extension of time for filing and serving statements of claim and defence were justified. The court was also tasked with ensuring that the proceedings were handled efficiently and that all relevant parties had their claims properly addressed.

The court, in its judgment, addressed the procedural aspect of the case by acknowledging an oversight in the initial transfer and consolidation orders. The court recognised that additional proceedings in the Taxation Review Authority had not been included in the earlier orders. Upon being made aware of this oversight, the court ordered the transfer and consolidation of these additional proceedings to the Auckland Registry of the High Court. The court also varied the previous orders to extend the deadlines for filing and serving statements of claim and defence, recognising the need for additional time to manage the consolidated proceedings effectively. The court's reasoning was based on ensuring fairness and efficiency in handling the consolidated matters, allowing all respondents adequate time to prepare their cases.

In conclusion, the court granted the orders for the transfer and consolidation of the additional proceedings, and varied the time limits for filing and serving statements of claim and defence. The decision was aimed at ensuring that all relevant claims were properly addressed within the judicial process, and that the proceedings were managed in a manner that was fair and efficient for all parties involved.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established