THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v THE TRAVEL DOCTOR – AUCKLAND LTD, CHRISTCHURCH LTD and TMVC WELLINGTON LTD [2021] NZHC 2050

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v THE TRAVEL DOCTOR – AUCKLAND LTD,CHRISTCHURCH LTD and TMVC WELLINGTON LTD [2021] NZHC 2050 [9 August 2021]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDTIMARU REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATE TIHI-O-MARU ROHECIV-2021-476-000011/12/13[2021] NZHC 2050UNDER The Companies Act 1993IN THE MATTER of the liquidation of THE TRAVELDOCTOR – AUCKLAND LIMITEDTHE TRAVEL DOCTOR –CHRISTCHURCH LIMITED andTHE TRAVEL DOCTOR – TMVCWELLINGTON LIMITEDBETWEEN THE COMMISSIONER OF INLANDREVENUEPlaintiffAND THE TRAVEL DOCTOR – AUCKLANDLIMITEDTHE TRAVEL DOCTOR –CHRISTCHURCH LIMITED andTHE TRAVEL DOCTOR – TMVCWELLINGTON LIMITEDDefendantsHearing: 9 August 2021Appearances: R McDonald for the CommissionerMr K Edmonds, Company Director, in personJudgment: 9 August 2021ORAL JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE PAULSENThis judgment was delivered by me on 9 August 2021pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarDate:[1] These are proceedings by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue for orders theabove-named defendants be put into liquidation.[2] In each case, the defendant companies are indebted to the Commissioner forunpaid taxes as well as interest and penalties. The Commissioner has served statutorydemands in respect of the unpaid taxes which have not been complied with. TheCommissioner seeks orders for liquidation of the defendant companies on the groundsthat they are insolvent and unable to pay their debts.[3] The applications first came before the Court on 28 June 2021. Mr KennethEdmonds, who I understand is a director and/or shareholder of the companies,appeared. After hearing from him, I adjourned the applications to be called again on9 August 2021 so that he could seek legal advice on behalf of the defendant companiesand take such steps as were appropriate to protect their interests.[4] Since then the defendant companies have taken no formal steps to oppose theapplications. There has been email correspondence between Mr Edmonds and theCourt which is on the file and I have read prior to the hearing today. In thatcorrespondence Mr Edmonds has indicated he seeks the suspension of this formerpartner's lawyer's right to practice law, a reconsideration of proceedings between himand his former partner, the appointment of a lawyer to assist him, that the debt owingto the Commissioner be paid by his former partner and that these proceedings bediscontinued.[5] Mr Edmonds appeared in Court again this morning and made submissionsopposing the making of orders putting the defendant companies into liquidation.Mr Edmonds opposes the applications due to concerns in respect to relationshipproperty and childcare matters between himself and his former partner. He considershe has been subject to fraud and deception by his former partner and his partner'slawyers. One of his allegations is that his former partner had the defendant companiesincur debt, including to the Commissioner, to deprive him of his property entitlements.Today, Mr Edmonds provided me with a letter from his former partner's lawyers dated15 July 2020 which he considers supports this allegation. I have considered the letter.[6] A further matter that Mr Edmonds raises today is a concern he has beendeprived of access to the records of the companies and cannot therefore be sure as tothe companies' indebtedness to the Commissioner for tax.[7] The position is that:(a) no oppositions to the applications have been filed despite the defendantcompanies being given extra time to do so;(b) there is no evidence of a dispute that the defendant companies areindebted to the Commissioner for the sums set out in the statements ofclaim; and(c) the Commissioner has made out the grounds for the orders that it seeks.[8] While I accept Mr Edmonds feels genuinely aggrieved, the matters he raisesare between him and his former partner and can only be resolved in other forums. Heis seeking orders that are not ones that this Court can grant in this proceeding. Asbetween the Commissioner and the defendant companies, there is nothing before meto suggest the Commissioner is not entitled to the orders it seeks. There is nothing inthe letter that Mr Edmonds provided today that changes my view.[9] It appears to me also, as I explained to Mr Edmonds, to the extent that he hasbeen deprived by his former partner of access to company records, orders forliquidation will allow a liquidator to investigate the affairs of the companies and islikely to provide him with the information he has to date not been able to obtain.Result[10] There shall be orders putting the defendant companies into liquidation.[11] The liquidators appointed are Elizabeth Helen Keene and Vivian JudithFatupaito.[12] The liquidators' remuneration is approved in accordance with the consents thatthey have filed dated 24 June 2021.[13] The liquidators are allowed to exercise their powers individually pursuant tos 242 of the Companies Act 1993.[14] There shall be costs to the applicant in the following amounts:(a) In respect of proceeding CIV-2021-476-11, the sum of $1,199.25.(b) In respect of proceeding CIV-2021-476-12, the sum of $1,126.25.(c) In respect of proceeding CIV-2021-476-13, the sum of $1,108.00.[15] In addition, the Commissioner is entitled to disbursements as fixed by theRegistrar.[16] These orders are timed at 11.05am on the 9th day of August 2021._______________________O G PaulsenAssociate JudgeSolicitors:Inland Revenue, Legal Services, ChristchurchCopy to:Mr K Edmonds