BEN NEVIS FORESTRY VENTURES LIMITED & ORS V COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE SC 43/2007
The Court dismissed the Commissioner's recall application because merely clarifying that paragraphs [152]-[155] should not be taken as the Court's view on Farnsworth or Zentrum was sufficient; the reliance identified did not affect the appeal's outcome and thus amendment or omission was unnecessary.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- BEN NEVIS FORESTRY VENTURES LIMITED & ORS V COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE SC 43/2007
- Parties
- Appellant: Ben Nevis Forestry Ventures Limited & Ors; Appellant: Accent Management Limited & Ors; Respondent: Commissioner of Inland Revenue
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 13 May 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Recall Application of Part of Judgment / Post Judgment Partial Recall Application
- Outcome
- Commissioner's application for recall dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Part IVA of the Tax Administration Act 1994, Disputes Process, Recall of Judgment, Precedent and Authority
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ben Nevis Forestry Ventures Limited & Ors
Appellant
Accent Management Limited & Ors
Appellant
Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Recall Application of Part of Judgment / Post Judgment Partial Recall Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether paragraphs [152]-[155] of the Court's earlier reasons should be recalled, omitted or amended
- 2 Whether the Court of Appeal decision in Commissioner v Zentrum Holdings Ltd alters the application of Commissioner v V H Farnsworth Ltd in cases preceded by Part IVA dispute process
- 3 Whether any error in the identified paragraphs affected the outcome of the appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The Court dismissed the Commissioner's recall application because merely clarifying that paragraphs [152]-[155] should not be taken as the Court's view on Farnsworth or Zentrum was sufficient; the reliance identified did not affect the appeal's outcome and thus amendment or omission was unnecessary.
Court Disposition
Commissioner's application for recall dismissed
Orders
- Application to recall paragraphs [152]-[155] dismissed
- Clarification that paragraphs [152]-[155] should not be regarded as representing this Court's view on the correctness of Farnsworth or Zentrum in light of Part IVA
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
BEN NEVIS FORESTRY VENTURES LIMITED & ORS V COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE SC 43/2007 13 May 2009IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 43/2007 [2009] NZSC 40BETWEEN BEN NEVIS FORESTRY VENTURES LIMITED & ORS Appellants AND COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE RespondentSC 44/2007BETWEEN ACCENT MANAGEMENT LIMITED & ORS Appellants AND COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Respondent Court: Elias CJ, Tipping, McGrath, Gault and Anderson JJ Counsel: C T Gudsell for Appellants in SC 44/2007 D J White QC and R J Ellis for Respondent Judgment: 13 May 2009JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (PARTIAL RECALL APPLICATION)[1] The Commissioner of Inland Revenue has applied for recall of paragraphs [152] – [155] of the reasons for judgment delivered on 19 December 2008. Specifically the order sought is one "recalling and omitting or amending" thoseparagraphs. The application is brought primarily because in the identified paragraphs reliance was placed on the decision of the Court of Appeal inCommissioner of Inland Revenue v V H Farnsworth Ltd1 but no reference was made to the more recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Zentrum Holdings Limited.2 No reference was made to either decision in argument. The Commissioner points out that Zentrum held that Farnsworth had no application in tax litigation that is preceded by the new disputes process under Part IVA of the Tax Administration Act 1994. [2] Inadvertently therefore this Court has created uncertainty as to whetherZentrum is a correct statement of the law. The reasons given in paragraphs [152] – [155] should not be regarded as representing this Court's view of the correctness or otherwise of either the Farnsworth or the Zentrum cases in the light of Part IVA. [3] We consider this clarification of the position is all that is necessary and that there is no need to order the omission or amendment of paragraphs [152] – [155] of the reasons for judgment. The problem identified above had no ultimate bearing on the disposition of the matter under consideration in the paragraphs concerned, nor did it have any bearing on the disposition of the appeal itself. The Commissioner's application is therefore dismissed. We make no order for costs.Solicitors: Wynyard Wood Solicitors, Auckland for Appellant in SC 44/2007 Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent1 [1984] 1 NZLR 428 (CA).2 [2007] 1 NZLR 145 (CA).