Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Singh

[2015] NZHC 1653

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV 2014-404-002753

CIV 2014-404-002097 [2015] NZHC 1653

UNDER

High Court Rule 24.18

IN THE MATTER OF

An application for bankruptcy

BETWEEN

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Judgment Creditor

AND

VEENA SINGH Judgment Debtor

YAGASHWAR SINGH Judgment Debtor

Hearing:	15 July 2015
Appearances:	M J Hartfield for Judgment Creditor D P Weaver for the Judgment Debtors
Judgment:	15 July 2015

INTERIM DECISION OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE CHRISTIANSEN

This judgment was delivered by me on

15.07.15 at 4:30pm, pursuant to

Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v V SINGH and Y SINGH [2015] NZHC 1653 [15 July 2015]

[1]      This matter concerns the bankruptcy applications of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue (the Commissioner).   Today’s hearing date was scheduled by Associate Judge  Bell after applications challenging the bankruptcy notices were dismissed or discontinued, and before the judgment debtors heralded review application was filed.

[2]      The main focus of counsels’ submissions concerned each party’s position

upon the review application.

[3]      It is now apparent that a one day hearing has been set down to hear the review application on 8 October 2015.  Before then the matter is to be called in the Duty Judge list at 11:45am on 29 July 2015 to deal with interim order applications.

[4]      As advised to counsel at the conclusion of today’s hearing it was the Court’s view that the review hearing was proceeding expeditiously for determination and in those circumstances it would be appropriate to use the Court’s discretion pursuant to Section 38 of the Insolvency Act 2006 to halt the applications for adjudication.  One of the issues for determination at the review hearing will be whether or not the Commissioner has recourse to bankruptcy proceedings when the Commissioner’s officers have agreed that the judgment debtors are persons “in serious hardship”.

[5]      In all the circumstances it seemed to the Court it was appropriate to defer the bankruptcy hearing for call on a date after the review is heard and a decision on that is given. The delay is less than three months.

[6]      I have described this as an interim decision.   I propose to add the Court’s

summary of those matters for consideration at judicial review in the hope it may be of assistance to the Judge hearing that review in due course.

Associate Judge Christiansen