THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v RAGS 2 GO LIMITED [2017] NZHC 3051
The Judge held the applicant's filing did not comply with the Court's rules, the 37 pleaded grounds were frivolous and vexatious, and the proceeding was plainly an abuse of process; accordingly the proceeding was struck out pursuant to r 5.35B(2)(a). A copy of the decision was to be served on the respondent and the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] NZHC 3051
- Parties
- Plaintiff: The Commissioner of Inland Revenue; Defendant: Rags 2 Go Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 8 December 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Winding Up / Liquidation Application / Registrar Referral Under R 5.35 A; Judge Struck Out Proceeding Under R 5.35 B
- Outcome
- Proceeding struck out as an abuse of process
- Legal Topics
- Abuse of Process, Striking Out, Frivolous and Vexatious Litigation, Jurisdiction, Liquidation
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Plaintiff
Rags 2 Go Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Winding Up / Liquidation Application / Registrar Referral Under R 5.35 A; Judge Struck Out Proceeding Under R 5.35 B
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the filing was plainly an abuse of process on its face
- 2 Whether the Judge should strike out the proceeding under r 5.35B
- 3 Whether the documents complied with the High Court Rules
Ratio Decidendi
The Judge held the applicant's filing did not comply with the Court's rules, the 37 pleaded grounds were frivolous and vexatious, and the proceeding was plainly an abuse of process; accordingly the proceeding was struck out pursuant to r 5.35B(2)(a). A copy of the decision was to be served on the respondent and the applicant was informed of the right to appeal.
Court Disposition
Proceeding struck out as an abuse of process
Orders
- Proceeding struck out pursuant to r 5.35B(2)(a) of the High Court Rules 2016
- Copy of this decision to be served on the respondent as soon as practicable pursuant to r 5.35B(4)
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v RAGS 2 GO LIMITED [2017] NZHC 3051 [8 December2017]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2011-404-1887[2017] NZHC 3051BETWEEN THE COMMISSIONER OF INLANDREVENUEPlaintiffAND RAGS 2 GO LIMITEDDefendantHearing: (On the papers)Judgment: 8 December 2017JUDGMENT OF BREWER J[1] The Registrar has referred to me pursuant to r 5.35A of the High Court Rules2016, a document headed:INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONSET ASIDE Ex Debito Justitiae Void Judgment a Nullity AS OF RIGHT Dueto Fraud, Bias, Collusion, Lack of Jurisdiction Judgment Obtained by FraudIN CIV-2011-404-1887[2] The applicant is described thus:Diplomat & Diplomatic Federal Marshal –Tamihere: Robin Noema Hughes. Living MAN corporeal443 Murray Rd RD1 Tuakau 2696 Waikato District[3] Rule 5.35A permits a Registrar who believes that on the face of a proceedingtendered for filing it is plainly an abuse of the process of the Court, to refer it to aJudge for consideration. Rule 5.35B gives the Judge, if he agrees with the Registrar,power to strike out the proceeding (among other things).[4] The Judgment which Mr Tamihere wants "set aside" is a decision of AssociateJudge Bell made on 24 June 2011 to put a company, Rags 2 Go Ltd, into liquidation.The applicant was the Commissioner of Inland Revenue and there was no opposition.1[5] There are 37 grounds for the application listed. They include fraud, corruption,kangaroo court and show trial.[6] The documents in no way comply with the rules of the Court as to the form ofdocuments to be filed in the Court.[7] The grounds listed are frivolous and vexatious.[8] I am satisfied that the proceeding is plainly an abuse of the process of the Court.I direct, pursuant to r 5.35B(2)(a), that the proceeding be struck out.[9] Pursuant to r 5.35B(4) a copy of this decision is to be served on the respondent(the Commissioner of Inland Revenue) as soon as practicable.[10] Mr Tamihere is informed that he has a right of appeal against this decision.________________________________Brewer J1 I note on the file two documents from Mr Tamihere. One is headed "notice of understanding andintent and claim of right and intent" and is dated 29 June 2011 and the other is headed "notice ofintent and claim of right" and is dated 15 July 2011. Neither has any legal relevance.