Hampton & Chesterfields Preschools Ltd v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue

[2008] NZCA 499

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA78/2008
[2008] NZCA 499

BETWEENDAVID JOHN HAMPTON AND CHESTERFIELDS PRESCHOOLS LIMITED

Applicants

ANDTHE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Respondent

Hearing:13 November 2008

Court:William Young  P, Ronald Young and Fogarty JJ

Counsel:Appearance for Applicants excused

G H Allan for Respondent

Judgment:27 November 2008 at 2.15 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

APPLICATION IS DISMISSED.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Fogarty J)

Introduction

[1]       This is an application for leave to appeal from a judgment of the High Court which in turn dismissed an appeal against sentence imposed by the District Court.  To obtain leave an appellant must first identify a question of law arising: see s 144 Summary Proceedings Act 1957.  On 7 February Panckhurst J declined leave to appeal on the grounds that such a question of law could not be identified. 

[2]       The applicants had been convicted of failing to file income tax and GST returns.  They were fined.  The appeal against sentence was seeking, by substitute, discharges without conviction.  The appeal was based on matters said to have emerged since the District Court hearing.  In brief these were a combination of evidence of failure of the IRD to disclose relevant file notes and a psychologist’s report discussing Mr Hampton’s depressive and pronounced anxieties as a consequence of being caught in a chronic dispute with the IRD.  While Panckhurst J considered these matters had some merit he dismissed the appeal.

[3]       The applicants attempted again to formulate a question of law in the first seven paragraphs of Mr Hampton’s submissions in support.  The first three paragraphs are non-contentious statements of law.  The fourth paragraph discusses another case.  The last three paragraphs are submissions of fact.  As with the application to the High Court for special leave, on this occasion again the applicants have not identified any question of law.  Rather, they are trying to rerun a repackage of the arguments which failed before Panckhurst J for discharge without conviction.

[4]       This application is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington