Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Tailor

[2024] NZHC 1161

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2021-404-936

[2024] NZHC 1161

UNDER

the Insolvency Act 2006

IN THE MATTER OF

the bankruptcy of Jyotin Tailor

BETWEEN

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Judgement Creditor

AND

JYOTIN TAILOR

Judgment Debtor

…Continued Overleaf

Hearing:	9 May 2024
Appearances:	V S Young for the Judgment Creditor Judgment Debtors in person
Date of Judgment:	10 May 2024

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE BRITTAIN

This judgment was delivered by me on 10 May 2024 at 11 am Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

…………………..

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:

Inland Revenue Legal Services

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v TAILOR [2024] NZHC 1161 [10 May 2024]

CIV-2021-404-937

AND

UNDER  the Insolvency Act 2006

IN THE MATTER OF     the bankruptcy of Beena Jyatin Tailor

BETWEENTHE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Judgment Creditor

AND  BEENA JYATIN TAILOR

Judgment Debtor

[1]                 The judgment debtors, Jyotin Tailor and Beena Jyatin Tailor, have filed interlocutory applications for annulment of their bankruptcies. Both were adjudicated bankrupt on 22 September 2022.

[2]                 The applications name the Commissioner of Inland Revenue, the judgment creditor, as respondent. The applications should name the Official Assignee as respondent.

[3]                 Following their adjudications, Mr and Mrs Tailor applied to the Court of Appeal for an extension of time to appeal the adjudications. The Court of Appeal dismissed those applications.1 Mr and Mrs Tailor then unsuccessfully applied for a recall of that judgment,2 followed by an unsuccessful application to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal.3 The judgments adjudicating Mr and Mrs Tailor bankrupt stand.

[4]                 Mr and Mrs Tailor have previously applied for an annulment of their bankruptcies. Those applications were declined by Associate Judge Paulson in a judgment dated 8 September 2023.4 That was followed by an unsuccessful application by Mr and Mrs Tailor for a recall of the judgment.5

[5]                 In bringing their latest applications for annulments, Mr and Mrs Tailor are making yet another collateral attack on the judgments adjudicating them bankrupt. There is no basis put forward for annulments.

[6]                 Mr and Mrs Tailor appear unable to grasp that they are no longer able to challenge the Commissioner’s tax assessments, which are deemed to be correct.6

[7]                 Accordingly, I strike out both applications. If the Commissioner seeks costs, then the Commissioner shall file a memorandum of no more than three pages within 10 working days of this judgment. Mr and Mrs Tailor may reply with written submissions of no more than three pages within a further 10 working days.

1      Tailor v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2023] NZCA 178.

2      Tailor v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2023] NZCA 306.

3      Tailor v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2024] NZSC 9.

4      Tailor v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2023] NZHC 2520.

5      Tailor v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2023] NZHC 3452.

6      Section 109(b) of the Tax Administration Act 1994.

[8]                 I order that Jyotin Tailor and Beena Jyatin Tailor may not file any further applications in respect of their bankruptcies without the leave of a Judge of the Court.

Associate Judge Brittain