YATES v THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2016] NZCA 9

YATES v THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2016] NZCA 9 [11 February 2016]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA505/2015[2016] NZCA 9BETWEEN CHRISTOPHER ROY YATESApplicantAND THE COMMISSIONER OF INLANDREVENUERespondentCourt: Wild, Cooper and Kós JJCounsel: Applicant in PersonN H Malarao and J Angelson for RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)11 February 2016 at 10.30 amJUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application filed on 7 September 2015 seeking an extension of time to appeal is dismissed.B No order as to costs.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Wild J)[1] On 7 September 2015 the applicant, Mr Yates, filed an application seeking an extension of time under r 29A of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 to appeal against an order adjudicating him bankrupt. That adjudication order was made in the High Court at Auckland on 11 June 2015.11 The Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Yates HC Auckland CIV-2014-404-0251, 11 June 2015.[2] The application essentially seeks an interim stay of the order adjudicatinghim bankrupt. The "interim" for which the stay is sought is until the TaxationReview Authority (TRA) decides Mr Yates' dispute with the Commissioner. Forexample, the application states:8 The Appellant says he has a legitimate expectation the merits of his dispute would be determined by the [TRA] through the disputes process.9 It is in the interests of justice the Order of Adjudication of Bankruptcy is stayed in the interim.[3] In the memorandum in opposition they filed on 27 October last, counsel for the respondent Commissioner pointed out that the TRA had struck out Mr Yates'proceeding on 12 October 2015, for want of jurisdiction. Counsel attached, to theirmemorandum, a copy of the TRA's strike out decision.2[4] Thus, the relief sought by Mr Yates in his application has become pointless: matters have moved on.[5] In a minute issued on 30 October last, Wild J pointed this out to the applicant, and asked whether he accepted that his application had become pointless.3[6] The solicitor who had filed the application, Mr B Ravelich of Jonathan Wiles & Associates, advised the Court in an email on 17 November that he had only ever assisted the applicant on a pro bono basis, and had not been formally retained. Thatis at odds with the application, which Mr Ravelich signed as "Counsel for theAppellant", and which gives Mr Wiles' office as the applicant's address for service.[7] Neither the applicant nor Mr Ravelich grappled with the problem pointed up by Wild J in his 30 October minute. In a second minute on 19 November, Wild J pointed this out and asked the parties to advise whether they consented to the application being dealt with on the papers.4 Both indicated their consent: the respondent in a memorandum on 27 November last; the applicant in an email from2 Yates v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2015] NZTRA 18.3 Yates v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue CA505/2015, 30 October 2015 (Minute and Direction of Wild J).4 Yates v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue CA505/2015, 19 November 2015 (Minute (No 2) and Direction of Wild J).Mr Ravelich on 13 January. Accordingly, there has been no oral hearing of the application and this judgment is based on the papers filed by the parties.[8] For the reasons explained by Wild J in his minute of 19 November last, the application has become pointless. As the TRA has struck out the applicant'sproceeding before it, there is no point in this Court granting a stay of the HighCourt's order adjudicating the applicant bankrupt, pending the TRA giving a decisionon the proceeding Mr Yates had commenced before the TRA.[9] For those reasons, the application filed on 7 September 2015 seeking an extension of time to appeal is dismissed.[10] In an email to the Court on 17 November last, Mr Ravelich advised that theapplicant "is hearing impaired and has a cognitive disability". Given those disabilities, there will be no order for costs.Solicitors:Meredith Connell, Auckland for Respondent