THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v REDCLIFFE FORESTRY VENTURE LIMITED AND ORS SC 8/2012
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and approved two specific questions for determination: whether the Commissioner's challenge was appropriately brought under r 5.49 and whether the High Court judgment should have been upheld.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v REDCLIFFE FORESTRY VENTURE LIMITED AND ORS SC 8/2012
- Parties
- Appellant: Commissioner of Inland Revenue; First Respondent: Redcliffe Forestry Venture Limited; Second Respondent: Garry Albert Muir; Third Respondent: Accent Management Limited; Fourth Respondent: Bristol Forestry Venture Limited; Fifth Respondent: Ben Nevis Forestry Ventures Limited; Sixth Respondent: Lexington Resources Limited; Seventh Respondent: Clive Richard Bradbury; Eighth Respondent: Gregory Alan Peebles
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 29 February 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal (leave Application) / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court; Leave Granted
- Outcome
- leave to appeal granted
- Legal Topics
- Rule 5.49, Leave to Appeal, Procedural Route to Challenge a Tax Claim, Interpretation of Procedural Rules
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Appellant
Redcliffe Forestry Venture Limited
First Respondent
Garry Albert Muir
Second Respondent
Accent Management Limited
Third Respondent
Bristol Forestry Venture Limited
Fourth Respondent
Ben Nevis Forestry Ventures Limited
Fifth Respondent
Lexington Resources Limited
Sixth Respondent
Clive Richard Bradbury
Seventh Respondent
Gregory Alan Peebles
Eighth Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal (leave Application) / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court; Leave Granted
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Commissioner's challenge to the claim was appropriately brought under r 5.49
- 2 Whether the judgment of the High Court should in any event have been upheld
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and approved two specific questions for determination: whether the Commissioner's challenge was appropriately brought under r 5.49 and whether the High Court judgment should have been upheld.
Court Disposition
leave to appeal granted
Orders
- Application for leave to appeal granted.
- Approved questions for the appeal: (i) whether the Commissioner's challenge to the claim was appropriately brought under r 5.49; and (ii) whether the judgment of the High Court should in any event have been upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v REDCLIFFE FORESTRY VENTURE LIMITED AND ORS SC 8/2012 [29 February 2012]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDSC 8/2012[2012] NZSC 10BETWEEN THE COMMISSIONER OF INLANDREVENUEAppellantAND REDCLIFFE FORESTRY VENTURELIMITEDFirst RespondentAND GARRY ALBERT MUIRSecond RespondentAND ACCENT MANAGEMENT LIMITEDThird RespondentAND BRISTOL FORESTRY VENTURELIMITEDFourth RespondentAND BEN NEVIS FORESTRY VENTURESLIMITEDFifth RespondentAND LEXINGTON RESOURCES LIMITEDSixth RespondentAND CLIVE RICHARD BRADBURYSeventh RespondentAND GREGORY ALAN PEEBLESEighth RespondentCourt: Tipping, McGrath and William Young JJCounsel: M S R Palmer, T G H Smith and J D Kerr for AppellantM S Hinde for First, Third and Fourth RespondentsG A Muir, Second Respondent in PersonR B Stewart QC for Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth RespondentsJudgment: 29 February 2012JUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application for leave to appeal is granted.B The approved questions are:(i) whether the Commissioner's challenge to the claim wasappropriately brought under r 5.49; and(ii) whether the judgment of the High Court should in any event have been upheld.____________________________________________________________________Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for AppellantWynyard Wood, Auckland for Respondents