Jennings Roadfreight Ltd (in Liq) v Commissioner of Inland Revenue (No 2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2011-404-7225

CIV-2012-404-0307 [2012] NZHC 1681

UNDER Parts 18 and 19 of the High Court Rules

IN THE MATTER OF Sections 251 and 292 of the Companies Act
1993

BETWEEN JENNINGS ROADFREIGHT LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
Plaintiff

ANDBORIS VAN DELDEN AND ROY HORROCKS AS LIQUIDATORS OF JENNINGS ROADFREIGHT LTD (IN LIQ)
Second Plaintiff

ANDCOMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
Defendant

Hearing: 7-8 May 2012

Appearances: C Mansell for First and Second Plaintiffs
H Schoonraad for Commissioner

Judgment: 13 July 2012

JUDGMENT TWO OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE DOOGUE (RECALLING JUDGMENT DATED 22 JUNE 2012)

This judgment was delivered by me on
13.07.12 at 4.30 p.m., pursuant to

Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules. Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Counsel:

Martelli McKegg, P O Box 5745, Auckland - [email protected]
Inland Revenue Department, 17 Putney Way, Auckland – [email protected]

JENNINGS ROADFREIGHT LIMITED & Anor (IN LIQUIDATION) V COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HC AK CIV-2011-404-7225 [13 July 2012]

[1] Two matters have been drawn to my attention which require correction in the judgment in this proceeding.

[2] The first matter is that in paragraph [50] the amount for which judgment is to issue is to be $26,733.56. As well, there is no requirement to refer to the figure in the plaintiff’s statement of claim and that can be deleted. Another minor change is required to paragraph [50] as well so that the paragraph in the judgment is replaced with the following paragraph:

[50] The entire amount of $26,733.56 that the Commissioner has received via the BNZ ought to be paid to the liquidators. The liquidators of the plaintiff will have judgment for that sum accordingly.

[3] A change is also required to paragraph [37]. In the second sentence the

opening words should read: “For the defendant’s argument ...” (emphasis added)

etc. Subject to those corrections the judgment dated 22 June 2012 stands.

J.P. Doogue
Associate Judge

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jennings Roadfreight Ltd, in liquidation, along with its liquidators, Boris van Delden and Roy Horrocks, brought proceedings against the Commissioner of Inland Revenue in the High Court of New Zealand. The dispute involved the recovery of certain amounts held by the Commissioner that were found to be improperly received by the Commissioner from the liquidation estate of Jennings Roadfreight Ltd. The liquidators sought the return of these funds, arguing they were incorrectly retained by the Commissioner.

The legal issues before the court centred on whether the Commissioner was entitled to retain certain payments received from the liquidation of Jennings Roadfreight Ltd. Specifically, the court had to determine if the Commissioner could lawfully withhold these funds under the circumstances presented and if the liquidators were entitled to their return. The court also needed to consider the appropriate remedy if it found in favour of the liquidators.

The court found that the Commissioner had indeed received funds from the liquidation estate that should not have been retained. The court emphasised that the Commissioner had no legal basis to withhold these funds from the liquidators. Consequently, the court ordered that the Commissioner must return the entire amount of $26,733.56 to the liquidators. The court underscored that the liquidators were entitled to this sum, and the Commissioner's retention of these funds was unjustified.

In summary, the court granted judgment in favour of the liquidators, ordering the Commissioner to pay the full amount of $26,733.56 to the liquidators of Jennings Roadfreight Ltd. This decision was based on the clear finding that the Commissioner had no lawful reason to withhold these funds from the liquidation estate.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established