New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Time bar

Legal area

Court

5 Apr 2019

TALLEY’S GROUP LIMITED v WORKSAFE NEW ZEALAND [2019] NZSC 37

Citation

[2019] NZSC 37
Court

Supreme Court

The Court refused leave because the Court of Appeal correctly concluded the charging document, while defective for omitting particulars, was not a nullity and s 379 saved the defect: the summary of facts served on 1 December 2015 supplied sufficient particulars so no miscarriage of justice was shown, and a stay was not warranted given absence of bad faith and the public interest in bringing accused to trial.
14 Dec 2018

TALLEY’S GROUP LIMITED v WORKSAFE NEW ZEALAND [2018] NZCA 587

Citation

[2018] NZCA 587
Court

Court of Appeal

A charging document that omits particulars of the practicable steps relied upon under s 6 HSEA is defective but not necessarily a nullity; where the charging document discloses time, place and the essence of the offence and particulars sufficient to avoid a miscarriage of justice were supplied with the charging document (here, by the summary of facts served 1 December 2015), s 379 CPA cures the defect; further expansion of particulars after service and after the limitation period requires court amendment under s 133 and does not justify a stay absent miscarriage or abuse of process.
12 Jun 2017

RESOURCES SERVICES LTD v AMR NICKEL LTD [2017] NZHC 1267

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1267
Court

High Court

Because the defendants failed in their strike out and summary judgment bids but partially succeeded on security for costs, and because the defendant-initiated summary judgment was essentially the same as the strike out application and did not produce Philpott-type benefits, the court fixed costs now: awarding costs to the plaintiff on the strike out/summary judgment components with a 30% reduction under r14.7(g) to reflect the defendants' success on security for costs.
16 Dec 2013

VINELIGHT NOMINEES LTD & ANOR v THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE CA36/2013 [2013] NZCA 655

Citation

(2013) 26 NZTC¶21
Court

Court of Appeal

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.
15 Dec 2011

FB DUVALL LTD & ORS V COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HC AK CIV-2009-404-1193

Citation

openlaw-c58b4ffa_ff73_4387_956a_8c4ae913d143.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held the plaintiffs' judicial review challenge succeeded because the Commissioner had not properly considered the merits of the proposed late GST objections despite an adequate explanation for delay and relevant prior concessions in the Duvall litigation; the Commissioner was ordered to reconsider his refusal to accept the late objections, and leave was reserved on consequential s 99(4) reassessments.

New Zealand Case Law

TALLEY’S GROUP LIMITED v WORKSAFE NEW ZEALAND [2019] NZSC 37

TALLEY’S GROUP LIMITED v WORKSAFE NEW ZEALAND [2018] NZCA 587

RESOURCES SERVICES LTD v AMR NICKEL LTD [2017] NZHC 1267

VINELIGHT NOMINEES LTD & ANOR v THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE CA36/2013 [2013] NZCA 655

FB DUVALL LTD & ORS V COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HC AK CIV-2009-404-1193