FALOON v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE CA417/2013 and CA462/2013 [2013] NZCA 425
The extension of time was refused for want of a sufficient explanation for the delay; the Registrar's requirement for security for costs ($5,880.00 per appeal) was upheld because the appellant's grounds for dispensing with security were inadequate given weak merits, likely respondent participation and a pending...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] NZCA 425
- Parties
- Appellant: Clarence John Faloon; Respondent: Commissioner of Inland Revenue
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 10 September 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Review of Registrar's Decision; Application for Extension of Time
- Outcome
- Application to review the Registrar's decision dismissed; application for extension of time refused; Registrar's direction requiring security for costs upheld.
- Legal Topics
- Security for Costs, Extension of Time, Strike Out for Jurisdiction, Jurisdiction
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Clarence John Faloon
Appellant
Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Review of Registrar's Decision; Application for Extension of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether to extend time to bring the review of the Registrar's decision
- 2 Whether security for costs should be dispensed with or reduced
- 3 Whether appeal CA417/2013 falls within the Court's jurisdiction
Ratio Decidendi
The extension of time was refused for want of a sufficient explanation for the delay; the Registrar's requirement for security for costs ($5,880.00 per appeal) was upheld because the appellant's grounds for dispensing with security were inadequate given weak merits, likely respondent participation and a pending jurisdictional challenge; security must be paid before any hearing date is sought.
Court Disposition
Application to review the Registrar's decision dismissed; application for extension of time refused; Registrar's direction requiring security for costs upheld.
Orders
- Application to review the Registrar's decision dismissed.
- Application for extension of time refused.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
FALOON v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE CA417/2013 and CA462/2013 [2013] NZCA 425 [10 September 2013]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA417/2013CA462/2013[2013] NZCA 425BETWEEN CLARENCE JOHN FALOONAppellantAND COMMISSIONER OF INLANDREVENUERespondentCounsel: Appellant (In person)A Goosen for RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)10 September 2013 at 4.00 pmJUDGMENT OF MILLER J(Review of Registrar's decision on security for costs)The application to review the Registrar's decision is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] The Registrar has directed that the appellant lodge security for costs of $5,880.00 in each of these two appeals, and has refused an application to dispense with security.[2] The appellant wishes to review the Registrar's decision, but is out of time. Before me is an application for an extension of time for bringing an application toreview the Registrar's decision.[3] Although the appellant is not long out of time, no sufficient explanation has been advanced for the delay.[4] Further, the original application to dispense with security was advanced on the basis that the appeal would require two hours or less of hearing time and the respondent may desire to take no part in the appeal. These propositions do not establish that it is in the interests of justice to waive or reduce security. I accept that the two appeals are closely related, but they raise different issues. The merits are weak. It is manifest on the papers that have been filed that the respondent will take part in the appeals, if they are prosecuted, and it remains to be seen how long the argument will take. The respondent has also contended that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain appeal CA417/2013 and has foreshadowed that an application to strike out will be brought on jurisdictional grounds. In the event that the respondent succeeds and scale costs are less than the amount of security, a refund can be paid.[5] I draw the appellant's attention to r 37 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005. Until security is paid the appellant may not apply for a hearing date, and the respondent may move to strike out.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent