Commissioner of Inland Revenue v The Travel Doctor Auckland Limited

[2021] NZHC 2050

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE TIHI-O-MARU ROHE

CIV-2021-476-000011/12/13

[2021] NZHC 2050

UNDER

The Companies Act 1993

IN THE MATTER

of the liquidation of THE TRAVEL DOCTOR – AUCKLAND LIMITED THE TRAVEL DOCTOR – CHRISTCHURCH LIMITED and

THE TRAVEL DOCTOR – TMVC WELLINGTON LIMITED

BETWEEN

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Plaintiff

AND

THE TRAVEL DOCTOR – AUCKLAND LIMITED

THE TRAVEL DOCTOR – CHRISTCHURCH LIMITED and THE TRAVEL DOCTOR – TMVC WELLINGTON LIMITED

Defendants

Hearing:

9 August 2021

Appearances:

R McDonald for the Commissioner

Mr K Edmonds, Company Director, in person

Judgment:

9 August 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE PAULSEN

This judgment was delivered by me on 9 August 2021 pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v THE TRAVEL DOCTOR – AUCKLAND LTD, CHRISTCHURCH LTD and TMVC WELLINGTON LTD [2021] NZHC 2050 [9 August 2021]

[1]        These are proceedings by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue for orders the above-named defendants be put into liquidation.

[2]        In each case, the defendant companies are indebted to the Commissioner for unpaid taxes as well as interest and penalties. The Commissioner has served statutory demands in respect of the unpaid taxes which have not been complied with. The Commissioner seeks orders for liquidation of the defendant companies on the grounds that they are insolvent and unable to pay their debts.

[3]        The applications first came before the Court on 28 June 2021. Mr Kenneth Edmonds, who I understand is a director and/or shareholder of the companies, appeared. After hearing from him, I adjourned the applications to be called again on 9 August 2021 so that he could seek legal advice on behalf of the defendant companies and take such steps as were appropriate to protect their interests.

[4]        Since then the defendant companies have taken no formal steps to oppose the applications. There has been email correspondence between Mr Edmonds and the Court which is on the file and I have read prior to the hearing today. In that correspondence Mr Edmonds has indicated he seeks the suspension of this former partner’s lawyer’s right to practice law, a reconsideration of proceedings between him and his former partner, the appointment of a lawyer to assist him, that the debt owing to the Commissioner be paid by his former partner and that these proceedings be discontinued.

[5]        Mr Edmonds appeared in Court again this morning and made submissions opposing the making of orders putting  the defendant  companies into liquidation.  Mr Edmonds opposes the applications due to concerns in respect to relationship property and childcare matters between himself and his former partner. He considers he has been subject to fraud and deception by his former partner and his partner’s lawyers. One of his allegations is that his former partner had the defendant companies incur debt, including to the Commissioner, to deprive him of his property entitlements. Today, Mr Edmonds provided me with a letter from his former partner’s lawyers dated 15 July 2020 which he considers supports this allegation. I have considered the letter.

[6]        A further matter that Mr Edmonds raises today is a concern he has been deprived of access to the records of the companies and cannot therefore be sure as to the companies’ indebtedness to the Commissioner for tax.

[7]The position is that:

(a)no oppositions to the applications have been filed despite the defendant companies being given extra time to do so;

(b)there is no evidence of a dispute that the defendant companies are indebted to the Commissioner for the sums set out in the statements of claim; and

(c)the Commissioner has made out the grounds for the orders that it seeks.

[8]        While I accept Mr Edmonds feels genuinely aggrieved, the matters he raises are between him and his former partner and can only be resolved in other forums. He is seeking orders that are not ones that this Court can grant in this proceeding. As between the Commissioner and the defendant companies, there is nothing before me to suggest the Commissioner is not entitled to the orders it seeks. There is nothing in the letter that Mr Edmonds provided today that changes my view.

[9]        It appears to me also, as I explained to Mr Edmonds, to the extent that he has been deprived by his former partner of access to company records, orders for liquidation will allow a liquidator to investigate the affairs of the companies and is likely to provide him with the information he has to date not been able to obtain.

Result

[10]There shall be orders putting the defendant companies into liquidation.

[11]      The liquidators appointed are Elizabeth Helen Keene and Vivian Judith Fatupaito.

[12]      The liquidators’ remuneration is approved in accordance with the consents that they have filed dated 24 June 2021.

[13]      The liquidators are allowed to exercise their powers individually pursuant to  s 242 of the Companies Act 1993.

[14]There shall be costs to the applicant in the following amounts:

(a)In respect of proceeding CIV-2021-476-11, the sum of $1,199.25.

(b)In respect of proceeding CIV-2021-476-12, the sum of $1,126.25.

(c)In respect of proceeding CIV-2021-476-13, the sum of $1,108.00.

[15]      In addition, the Commissioner is entitled to disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.

[16]These orders are timed at 11.05am on the 9th day of August 2021.

O G Paulsen Associate Judge

Solicitors:

Inland Revenue, Legal Services, Christchurch

Copy to:
Mr K Edmonds