Tailor v Commissioner of Inland Revenue

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA696/2022
[2023] NZCA 559

BETWEEN	BEENA JYATIN TAILOR Applicant
AND	COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Respondent

CA697/2022
BETWEEN	JYOTIN TAILOR Applicant
AND	COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Respondent

Court:	Miller and Collins JJ
Counsel:	Applicants in person
Judgment: (On the papers)	8 November 2023 at 2.00 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Applications for recall)

AThe applications for recall are declined.
BThe Registrar is to decline to accept for filing any further applications from the applicants in connection with this proceeding.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Miller J)

The applicants have again moved for recall of our judgment of 17 May 2023, in which we declined to extend time to appeal on the ground that the appeal could not possibly succeed.[1]
[1]Tailor v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2023] NZCA 178. The applicants have previously applied for recall, which this Court declined: Tailor v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2023] NZCA 306.
That remains the position. The assessments on which the bankruptcy notices were issued were deemed correct because they were not challenged as the Tax Administration Act 1994 requires.
The applications for recall (one by each applicant) are dismissed. We direct that the Registrar is to decline to accept for filing any further applications from the applicants in connection with this proceeding.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Beena Jyatin Tailor and Jyotin Tailor appealed against a decision of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand which dismissed their applications for recall of the earlier decision. The applicants sought recall of the Court of Appeal's judgment dated 17 May 2023, which declined to extend time for appeal on the basis that the appeal had no possibility of success. This was the second recall application by the Tailors, the first of which was also dismissed.

The central issue for the Court of Appeal was whether it should grant the applicants' second recall application. The applicants argued that the earlier decision was flawed and sought to extend the time for appeal. The Commissioner of Inland Revenue opposed the recall application, asserting that the original decision was correct and that the applicants had no reasonable prospect of success on appeal.

The Court of Appeal, in declining the recall application, reiterated that the assessments on which the bankruptcy notices were issued were deemed correct because they were not challenged as required by the Tax Administration Act 1994. The Court found no basis to recall its earlier decision and considered that the applicants had not demonstrated any new grounds warranting reconsideration of the earlier judgment. The Court also directed that the Registrar should decline to accept any further applications from the applicants in connection with the proceeding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the recall applications and directed the Registrar to decline any further applications from the applicants in connection with the proceeding.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established