COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v TAILOR [2023] NZHC 3452

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v TAILOR [2023] NZHC 3452 [30 November 2023]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2021-404-936[2023] NZHC 3452UNDER the Insolvency Act 2006IN THE MATTER of the bankruptcy of JYOTIN TAILORBETWEEN THE COMMISSIONER OF INLANDREVENUEJudgment CreditorAND JYOTIN TAILORJudgment DebtorCIV-2021-404-937UNDER the Insolvency Act 2006IN THE MATTER of the bankruptcy of BEENA JYATINTAILORBETWEEN THE COMMISSIONER OF INLANDREVNEUEJudgment CreditorAND BEENA JYATIN TAILORJudgment DebtorHearing: On the papersAppearances: V S Young for Judgment CreditorNo appearance for the Judgment DebtorsJudgment: 30 November 2023JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE PAULSENThis judgment was delivered by me on 30 November 2023 at 3.45 pmpursuant to rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarDate:[1] On 7 September 2023, I dismissed applications by Mr and Mrs Tailor for ordersannulling their adjudications in bankruptcy for reasons that I subsequently set out in areasons judgment of 8 September 2023.1[2] Mr and Mrs Tailor have filed applications asking me to recall my judgment onthe ground that a miscarriage of justice has occurred.[3] The applications engage r 11.9 of the High Court Rules 2016, which provides:Recalling judgmentA Judge may recall a judgment given orally or in writing at any time before aformal record of it is drawn up and sealed.[4] The leading statement in New Zealand of the circumstances in which the Courtwill exercise its discretion to recall a judgment was set out by Wild CJ in HorowhenuaCounty v Nash (No. 2) as follows:2Generally speaking, a judgment once delivered must stand for better or worsesubject, of course, to appeal. Were it otherwise there would be greatinconvenience and uncertainty. There are, I think, three categories of cases inwhich a judgment not perfected may be recalled — first, where since thehearing there has been an amendment to a relevant statute or regulation or anew judicial decision of relevance and high authority; secondly, where counselhave failed to direct the Court's attention to a legislative provision orauthoritative decision of plain relevance; and thirdly, where for some othervery special reason justice requires that the judgment be recalled.[5] I note also that it is not unusual for such applications to be considered on thepapers, and I am doing so in this case.3[6] None of the grounds for recalling my judgment have been made out by Mr andMrs Tailor.[7] They have filed identical applications in which they say they were not awarethey had to attend court in person on 7 September 2023 and had waited for a telephonecall from the Judge. They say they had asked an unidentified case manager whetherthey had to appear in person or there would be a telephone conference but got no1 Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Tailor [2023] NZHC 2520.2 Horowhenua County v Nash (No. 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (SC) at 633.3 HG Metal Manufacturing Ltd v Navaratnam [2021] NZHC 2701 at [32].answer, and therefore believed there would be a telephone conference. They say theywere entitled to receive a correct answer from the case manager and missed theiropportunity to appear in court. They also say they were incorrectly declared bankruptand are entitled to annulment of their bankruptcies.[8] Although both Mr and Mrs Tailor have filed an affidavit, those affidavits donot deal with any of the matters in [7] above. They have also provided no explanationfor why it has taken almost three months to make their applications.[9] The applications raise no new matters that were not dealt with in my judgmentof 8 September. I was satisfied then, and remain satisfied, that Mr and Mrs Tailor wereaware of the hearing date, and there was no reason for any confusion as to whether thehearing would be by telephone conference or in-person hearing.[10] In addition, for the reasons set out in my judgment of 8 September, there is noprospect of Mr and Mrs Tailor's applications for annulment succeeding, and recallingmy judgment would simply serve no purpose. I note in this regard that, since myjudgment was issued, the Court of Appeal has dismissed a second attempt by Mr andMrs Tailor to have it recall its judgment dismissing their application for an extensionof time to appeal from their adjudications.4[11] It appears from the judgment debtors' several recall applications filed in thisCourt and the Court of Appeal that they have not understood the reasons that preventthem from challenging or obtaining annulment of their adjudications in bankruptcy.There may be a path forward for them, but it is not the one they are presently taking,and I would urge them to seek advice from a lawyer as to their options in this regard.Result[12] The application by Mr and Mrs Tailor for recall of my judgment is dismissed.There shall be no order for costs.4 Tailor v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2023] NZCA 559.[13] The Commissioner of Inland Revenue and the Official Assignee should beprovided with a copy of this judgment._______________________O G PaulsenAssociate JudgeSolicitors:Legal Services, Inland Revenue, AucklandCopy to:Commissioner of Inland RevenueOfficial Assignee