26 Nov 2019
The High Court held the District Court did not err: the $8,000 starting point was consistent with comparable authority, the 20% reduction for personal mitigation and 25% reduction for the guilty plea were appropriately applied, and the resulting $4,800 fine was not manifestly excessive; appeal dismissed.
5 Sept 2019
The High Court held the District Court sentences were manifestly inadequate and set them aside, imposing specific fines for each offence as specified in the court's schedule consistent with statutory maxima.
27 Mar 2018
The Court held that (a) contracting out the purely mechanical rates assessment process to district councils was not an unlawful delegation, (b) recovery of regional rates in the district council's name did not invalidate the debts, (c) including GST in rates is lawful because GST is a cost of supply borne by the local authority, (d) some resolutions breached s24 and ss57–58 timing rules but those breaches were technical and caused no substantial injustice, and (e) exercising the s5 Judicature Amendment Act 1972 power to validate the impugned resolutions was appropriate to preserve rates and p…
15 Sept 2016
Section 24 requires calendar dates for payment to be fixed in the rates resolution; NRC unlawfully delegated its statutory functions of assessing and recovering rates to territorial authorities (including KDC) because the Rating Act contains no express power to delegate those functions to third parties; GST treatment in invoices does not render rates unlawful and penalties may apply to the full invoiced amount; the Kaipara validation statute does not validate the NRC's unlawful rates.
22 Dec 2015
PGW participated in three concerted arrangements (tagging fee, yard fee, RFID administration fee) that fixed prices in breach of ss 27 and 30 of the Commerce Act 1986; having assessed culpability, the starting point agreed by parties ($3,400,000–$4,300,000) was appropriate, a 25% discount for early acceptance of liability was warranted, and applying totality the Court imposed a single pecuniary penalty of NZD 2,700,000 and made a declaration of contravention.
4 Aug 2014
The Court exercised its discretion under r14.1(1) to award costs to the plaintiff Mayes as overall justice favoured him, declined to order an uplift for SCFL's conduct or refusal to settle, and adjusted the quantum by allowing specified items on a 2A scale and reducing 0.6 days for a particular pleading item, with no costs awarded to SCFL.
17 Jun 2014
Leave to appeal dismissed because, on the factual findings of the lower courts, no issue of general or public importance arises and there is no risk of substantial miscarriage of justice; the Court of Appeal correctly concluded that AIL returns were not RWT returns for s108 purposes and the contested questions about scope of arrangement and reconstruction did not warrant Supreme Court intervention.
29 May 2014
Fraud by promoters who failed to deliver a compliant employee fund does not prevent the existence of a tax avoidance arrangement where real transactions, documents and steps altered tax incidence; on the facts the appellant was a party to an arrangement with the dominant purpose and effect of avoiding tax and thus took an abusive tax position under s141D(7)(b)(i); appeal dismissed.
26 Mar 2014
The Court accepted the admitted facts established a price‑fixing understanding in the Auckland commercial MSG8 market, determined statutory maxima were far in excess of likely appropriate penalties, fixed a starting point comparable to prior cases (assessing market importance, duration, role and culpability), then applied substantial discounts for cooperation, admissions, absence of prior offending and limited commercial gain. That produced a final corporate penalty of $1,850,000 for Carter Holt and $5,000 for Mr Dodds, with parties to bear their own costs and procedural orders respecting sea…
16 Dec 2013
The Court held Weyand was a New Zealand tax resident until the 2004 restructuring; VNL could not rely on s NF 5 because it failed to make all reasonable inquiries and lacked reasonable grounds; the taxable-activity defence was barred under s 138G as not disclosed; the four‑year time bar did not preclude RWT assessments because VNL filed AIL returns not RWT returns; the overall structure was a tax avoidance arrangement and the Commissioner lawfully assessed tax (including NRWT where applicable) without unlawful reconstruction; penalties for an abusive tax position were properly imposed.