CHESTERFIELDS PRESCHOOLS LIMITED AND ORS V THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE SC 90/2009
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicants failed to establish that a grant of leave was necessary in the interests of justice under s13(4); the Court of Appeal's interlocutory decision was context‑specific, raised no issue of general or public importance, and allowing enforcement of the costs orders before...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- SC 90/2009
- Parties
- Applicant: Chesterfields Preschools Limited; Applicant: David John Hampton; Applicant: Chesterfields Partnership; Applicant: Chesterfields Preschools Partnership; Applicant: Anolbe Enterprises Limited; Respondent: The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 8 December 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review; Costs and Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court From a Court of Appeal Interlocutory Decision (stay of Execution of High Court Costs Orders)
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Stay of Execution, Costs Orders, Leave to Appeal, Interlocutory Appeal
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Chesterfields Preschools Limited
Applicant
David John Hampton
Applicant
Chesterfields Partnership
Applicant
Chesterfields Preschools Partnership
Applicant
Anolbe Enterprises Limited
Applicant
The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review; Costs and Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court From a Court of Appeal Interlocutory Decision (stay of Execution of High Court Costs Orders)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to appeal to the Supreme Court should be granted from a Court of Appeal interlocutory order staying execution of High Court costs orders
- 2 Whether a grant of leave is necessary in the interests of justice under s13(4) of the Supreme Court Act 2003
- 3 Whether enforcement of costs orders pending determination of the respondent's substantive appeal would cause a miscarriage of justice or be unfair to the respondent
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicants failed to establish that a grant of leave was necessary in the interests of justice under s13(4); the Court of Appeal's interlocutory decision was context‑specific, raised no issue of general or public importance, and allowing enforcement of the costs orders before the substantive appeal would be unjust to the Commissioner.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Orders
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
- Applicants, jointly and severally, ordered to pay the respondent $3,000 plus disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CHESTERFIELDS PRESCHOOLS LIMITED AND ORS V THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE SC 90/2009 8 December 2009IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 90/2009 [2009] NZSC 127BETWEEN CHESTERFIELDS PRESCHOOLS LIMITED First Applicant AND DAVID JOHN HAMPTON Second Applicant AND CHESTERFIELDS PARTNERSHIP Third Applicant AND CHESTERFIELDS PRESCHOOLS PARTNERSHIP Fourth Applicant AND ANOLBE ENTERPRISES LIMITED Fifth Applicant AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Respondent Court: Tipping, McGrath and Wilson JJ Counsel: Applicants in person M S R Palmer and E Aspey for Respondent Judgment: 8 December 2009JUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. B The applicants, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay the respondent the sum of $3,000 plus disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.REASONS[1] The applicants seek leave to appeal from an interlocutory decision of the Court of Appeal in which that Court, in its discretion, stayed the execution of orders for costs which the High Court had made against the respondent Commissioner in judicial review proceedings between the parties. [2] Leave to appeal to this Court should be refused because the applicants have not established that a grant of leave is necessary in the interests of justice. 1 The Court of Appeal's decision was made in the particular context of the present case. No matter of general or public importance or of general commercial importance is involved. Nor is there any appearance of a miscarriage of justice as a result of the applicants being unable to enforce the costs orders made in their favour by the High Court, pending the Court of Appeal's determination of the respondent's substantive appeal. [3] Furthermore, s 13(4) of the Supreme Court Act provides that this Court must not give leave to appeal from an order made by the Court of Appeal on an interlocutory application unless it is necessary to do so in the interests of justice. That has not been shown in this case. If anything, it would be unjust to the Commissioner to allow the costs orders against him to be enforced before his substantive appeal is determined.Solicitors: Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent1 Sections 13(1) and 13(2) of the Supreme Court Act 2003.