JAWAHAR BHASKAR MUSUKU v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2017] NZSC 140
The Reekie principles were properly applied by the lower court and are sufficiently broad to encompass an appeal challenging a bankruptcy order; no adaptation was required, the case did not raise a matter of public or general importance nor an appearance of miscarriage of justice, therefore leave to appeal is...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] NZSC 140
- Parties
- Applicant: Jawahar Bhaskar Musuku; Respondent: Commissioner of Inland Revenue
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 14 September 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court Against Dismissal of Review of Refusal to Dispense With Security for Costs in Bankruptcy Proceedings / Leave Application With Extension of Time Sought (extension Granted)
- Outcome
- Extension of time granted; application for leave to appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Security for Costs, Leave to Appeal, Bankruptcy Order, Reekie Principles, Waiver of Security for Costs, Public Importance, Miscarriage of Justice
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Jawahar Bhaskar Musuku
Applicant
Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court Against Dismissal of Review of Refusal to Dispense With Security for Costs in Bankruptcy Proceedings / Leave Application With Extension of Time Sought (extension Granted)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted
- 2 Whether the Reekie principles require adaptation in a case challenging a bankruptcy order
- 3 Whether security for costs should be dispensed with given the applicant's circumstances and criminal charges
Ratio Decidendi
The Reekie principles were properly applied by the lower court and are sufficiently broad to encompass an appeal challenging a bankruptcy order; no adaptation was required, the case did not raise a matter of public or general importance nor an appearance of miscarriage of justice, therefore leave to appeal is refused though an extension of time is granted.
Court Disposition
Extension of time granted; application for leave to appeal dismissed
Orders
- Extension of time granted
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
JAWAHAR BHASKAR MUSUKU v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2017] NZSC 140 [14 September 2017]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDSC 73/2017[2017] NZSC 140BETWEEN JAWAHAR BHASKAR MUSUKUApplicantAND COMMISSIONER OF INLANDREVENUERespondentCourt: Elias CJ, William Young and OʼRegan JJCounsel: G J Thwaite for ApplicantM Deligiannis and M J Bryant for RespondentJudgment: 14 September 2017JUDGMENT OF THE COURTAn extension of time is granted but the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal against an order adjudicating him bankrupt on the application of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue.1 His application for an order dispensing with the provision of security for costs was refused by the Deputy Registrar and his application to review that refusal was dismissed by Brown J,2 as was an application for a recall of that judgment.3 He now seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dismissing his application for review and seeks an associated extension of time. We grant an extension as sought.[2] The applicant is facing over 70 charges under the Crimes Act 1961 which relate to alleged offending relating to PAYE and GST returns. He is apparently1 Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Musuku [2016] NZHC 2773 (Associate Judge Doogue).2 Musuku v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2017] NZCA 144 [Musuku (CA)].3 Musuku v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2017] NZCA 255.living in Australia and there is an outstanding warrant out for his arrest. He has provided no evidence indicative of an actual inability to provide security for costs (as opposed to what might be inferred from his bankruptcy). In the decision under challenge, Brown J evaluated the application in terms of the approach adopted inReekie v Attorney-General.4[3] If leave to appeal were granted, the applicant would contend that the Reekieprinciples require adaptation in the present case because: (a) it involves an appeal challenging a bankruptcy order; (b) the Commissioner is the prosecutor in the criminal proceedings and the practical effect of the bankruptcy will be to require the applicant to defend those charges on legal aid and thus without the practical ability to choose his counsel; and (c) there are outstanding issues between the applicant and the Commissioner in other proceedings. He also would argue that the willingness of counsel to appear for him on appeal warrants dispensation with security for costs.[4] The Reekie principles are sufficiently broad to encompass the present circumstances. They were appropriately applied by Brown J. The case thus does not involve an issue of public or general importance and there is no appearance of a miscarriage of justice.[5] The application is accordingly dismissed. In light of the bankruptcy of the applicant, we make no order for costs.Solicitors:Gregory J Thwaite, Auckland for ApplicantCrown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent4 Musuku (CA), above n 2, at [3]–[13]; citing Reekie v Attorney-General [2014] NZSC 63, [2014] 1 NZLR 737.