Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Rags 2 Go Limited

[2017] NZHC 3051

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2011-404-1887

[2017] NZHC 3051

BETWEEN

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Plaintiff

AND

RAGS 2 GO LIMITED

Defendant

Hearing:	(On the papers)
Judgment:	8 December 2017

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

[1]        The Registrar has referred to me pursuant to r 5.35A of the High Court Rules 2016, a document headed:

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION

SET ASIDE Ex Debito Justitiae Void Judgment a Nullity AS OF RIGHT Due to Fraud, Bias, Collusion, Lack of Jurisdiction Judgment Obtained by Fraud IN CIV-2011-404-1887

[2]The applicant is described thus:

Diplomat & Diplomatic Federal Marshal –

Tamihere: Robin Noema Hughes. Living MAN corporeal
443 Murray Rd RD1 Tuakau 2696 Waikato District

[3]        Rule 5.35A permits a Registrar who believes that on the face of a proceeding tendered for filing it is plainly an abuse of the process of the Court, to refer it to a

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v RAGS 2 GO LIMITED [2017] NZHC 3051 [8 December 2017]

Judge for consideration. Rule 5.35B gives the Judge, if he agrees with the Registrar, power to strike out the proceeding (among other things).

[4]        The Judgment which Mr Tamihere wants “set aside” is a decision of Associate Judge Bell made on 24 June 2011 to put a company, Rags 2 Go Ltd, into liquidation. The applicant was the Commissioner of Inland Revenue and there was no opposition.1

[5]        There are 37 grounds for the application listed. They include fraud, corruption, kangaroo court and show trial.

[6]        The documents in no way comply with the rules of the Court as to the form of documents to be filed in the Court.

[7]The grounds listed are frivolous and vexatious.

[8]        I am satisfied that the proceeding is plainly an abuse of the process of the Court. I direct, pursuant to r 5.35B(2)(a), that the proceeding be struck out.

[9]        Pursuant to r 5.35B(4) a copy of this decision is to be served on the respondent (the Commissioner of Inland Revenue) as soon as practicable.

[10]Mr Tamihere is informed that he has a right of appeal against this decision.

Brewer J

1      I note on the file two documents from Mr Tamihere. One is headed “notice of understanding and intent and claim of right and intent” and is dated 29 June 2011 and the other is headed “notice of intent and claim of right” and is dated 15 July 2011. Neither has any legal relevance.