Tailor v Commissioner of Inland Revenue

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA696/2022
[2023] NZCA 306

BETWEEN	BEENA JYATIN TAILOR Applicant
AND	THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Respondent

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

Court:	Miller and Collins JJ
Counsel:	Applicants in person
Judgment: (On the papers)	19 July 2023 at 12.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Recall applications)

The applications for recall are declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Miller J)

These are applications for recall of a judgment of 17 May 2023 in which we declined to extend time to appeal on the ground that the applicants had no defence to the Commissioner’s claim in bankruptcy.[1]
[1]Tailor v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2023] NZCA 178.
The applications for recall (one by each applicant) assert that we made an incorrect decision. They depose that Ms Tailor was unwell at the time of adjudication and Mr Tailor needed to stay home to care for her, and because the High Court insisted on proceeding an incorrect decision was made.
The position remains that no purpose would be served by extending time to appeal the adjudications. For the reasons given in our earlier judgment the High Court decision was correct.
The applications are declined.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Beena Jyatin Tailor and Jyotin Tailor, both applicants, have sought recall of a previous judgment by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, which declined to extend the time for appealing against the Commissioner of Inland Revenue's claim in bankruptcy. The Court of Appeal, comprising Miller and Collins JJ, dismissed the recall applications, upholding the earlier judgment. The applicants appeared in person, with no counsel, during the proceedings.

The legal issues addressed by the Court of Appeal pertained to whether the earlier decision to decline the extension of time for appeal was correct. The applicants argued that the Court made an incorrect decision due to Ms Tailor's illness at the time of adjudication, and the High Court's insistence on proceeding without considering Mr Tailor's need to care for her. They claimed that these factors led to an unjust outcome.

The Court of Appeal found that the earlier judgment was correct, and no purpose would be served by extending the time for appeal. The Court maintained that the High Court's decision was justified, as the applicants had no defence to the Commissioner's claim in bankruptcy. The Court found no merit in the applicants' arguments, and therefore, the recall applications were dismissed.

The Court of Appeal's decision stands, with no extension of time granted for the applicants to appeal the earlier judgment. The Court's reasons for declining the recall applications are based on the finding that the High Court's decision was correct, and no purpose would be served by revisiting the matter.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established