30 Nov 2021
Application dismissed because applicant failed to establish a genuine triable cross-claim that could not have been raised in the original proceedings; the bankruptcy notice remained effective despite the overstatement and non-compliance, so the court had no jurisdiction to set it aside on the grounds advanced.
24 Mar 2021
Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal did not raise any question of law requiring clarification by a second appeal; established common law principles that damages compensate probable loss applied and the trial judge was entitled to find the Mills probably would have recovered the GST refund in reliance on the warranty.
22 Feb 2011
The refund obligation arose before 7 May 2010 under the contractual indemnity (cl 1.6) when the three month extension expired, therefore the refund was a debt due at the time the statutory demand was issued; Spotburn failed to show any arguable basis that GST should not be refunded; however there is a genuine dispute as to the amount of contractual interest claimed and Stockco has not established the basis or calculation for the claimed interest; accordingly the statutory demand is not entirely invalid but must stand in a reduced amount reflecting undisputed items (basic price less $20,000 an…
14 Dec 2010
The Commissioner established a prima facie case to put the company into liquidation because the statutory demand was not complied with and the Tax Administration Act assessments are presumptively correct; the company's GST refund claim cannot be ignored entirely but the company failed to prove to the clear and persuasive standard that the GST input credit is sufficiently established; r5.61 does not preclude consideration of the refund claim in the court's discretionary decision because insolvency set-off under s310 would apply on liquidation; solvency remains undecided pending advertisement a…
11 Nov 2008
The court held the credit adjustment agreements did not extinguish Contract Pacific's right to sue on the dishonoured cheque; the Commissioner lost authority to withhold the disputed refund because he failed to comply with s46 timing for requests when an investigation was also in play, creating an antecedent liability that constituted valuable consideration under s27 Bills of Exchange Act; the cheque issued 5 February 2001 was treated as payment for purposes of the savings provision and did not fail for consideration; judgment entered for plaintiff for NZD 6,281,767 on the first cause of acti…
16 May 2008
The applicant failed to prove that the liquidation application cannot succeed or that special circumstances amounting to abuse of process exist; therefore the interim stay and restraint on advertising were refused, although an adjournment was granted until 11:45 a.m. on 13 June 2008 to allow the defendant an opportunity to pay the debt.
22 Sept 2003
The Court held the Commissioner's letters constituted sufficient notice under s46 that refunds would be delayed pending review; the Commissioner lawfully withheld payment under s46(1)(b) until satisfied the taxpayer complied with obligations; s46 does not require explicit citation of s46(2) in such notices nor impose ongoing refreshment obligations once an initial compliant request/notice is given; accordingly summary judgment was properly refused and the appeal dismissed.