[Scoop copy of judgment: SC_8_2012__CIR_v_Redcliffe__Ors.pdf]

Supreme Court of New Zealand

9 November 2012

MEDIA RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE PUBLICATION

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v REDCLIFFE FORESTRY VENTURE LTD

(SC 8/2012) [2012] NZSC 94

PRESS SUMMARY

This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s judgment. It does not comprise part of the reasons for that judgment. The full judgment with reasons is the only authoritative document. The full text of the judgment and reasons can be found at www.courtsofnz.govt.nz.

On 15 September 2009, Redcliffe Forestry Venture Ltd and others applied to the High Court to set aside a High Court judgment, which had concluded that the Trinity scheme that they were involved in was a tax avoidance arrangement. The judgment had eventually been upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court. Redcliffe alleged that the Commissioner had knowingly and wrongly applied a depreciation allowance to expenditure incurred by the Trinity investors under certain provisions of the Income Tax Act 2004, when others should have been used. Redcliffe asserted that this was fraud, which is an exception to the principle that court judgments are final and conclusive as to what they decide, so that the Commissioner was not able to rely on the Supreme Court’s judgment. The Commissioner responded to the 2009 proceeding by filing an objection to the jurisdiction of the High Court under r 5.49 of the High Court Rules and applying for orders to dismiss Redcliffe’s proceeding on the ground that the High Court’s decision is final and cannot be reopened.

The High Court dismissed Redcliffe’s proceeding. The Judge held that only fraud in the strict legal sense came within the fraud exception to the principle of finality. The allegations of fraud in Redcliffe’s statement of claim were not of this kind. The High Court was also not able to declare its earlier judgment a nullity.

Redcliffe successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal. The focus in that Court was on a procedural issue of whether the Commissioner was entitled to object to the High Court’s jurisdiction under r 5.49. The Court of Appeal accepted Redcliffe’s argument that jurisdiction under r 5.49 did not apply. The Commissioner should have brought its objection by applying under a different rule to strike out the proceeding. Redcliffe’s appeal was allowed. The Commissioner appealed to the Supreme Court against this judgment.

The Supreme Court has held that the fraud alleged by Redcliffe was in fact a claim of legal error which does not come within the fraud exception. The High Court has no power to recall or set aside judgments on questions of law which have been the subject of appellate decision. For the same reason, the High Court also had no jurisdiction to declare its earlier judgment was a nullity. The Commissioner had properly objected to the proceeding under r 5.49 and the Commissioner’s objection to the High Court’s jurisdiction under r 5.49 was soundly based and should have been upheld. Accordingly, the High Court’s judgment striking out the 2009 proceeding was reinstated.

To protect against abuse of process, fraud claims challenging the conclusiveness of judgments of the High Court in future should undergo pre-trial scrutiny. When a party wishes to reopen a case, on the ground that it was procured by fraud, the claim must be fully and precisely pleaded and particularised, and of sufficient apparent cogency that it should go to trial. If a defendant applies to dismiss the proceeding on the ground that the threshold for fraud is not met, the plaintiff must respond promptly and submit probative affidavit evidence which verifies the critical pleaded facts relied on in the proceeding. Unless these requirements are met, the proceeding seeking to reopen the case should be dismissed.

ENDS

[Scoop copy of judgment: SC_8_2012__CIR_v_Redcliffe__Ors.pdf]

© Scoop Media

Gordon Campbell: On The 2013 Budget

Among Thursday’s main talking points:

We are apparently on track for a margin-of-error $75 million surplus, now in sight for 2014/15. But this sickly creature is hobbling out of the lab on the basis of all kinds of facilitative conjuring: such as trimming by $200 million the amount of new spending next time around.

With this strictly nominal surplus in sight, the 1984-ish justification for eternal austerity will have a news talisman: namely, getting Crown debt down to 20% of GDP by 2020. More>>

Budget Report, Lockup Audio & Images: Budget Day 2013 As always and especially after the managerial mishaps of the past few weeks and months, (e.g. Aaron Gilmore, the Mighty River Power share float, the GCSB mishaps) Budget Day 2013 was always going to be a pageant of reassurance... More>>

Budget 2013 Comment: Plain Sailing, But It's No America's Cup Pattrick Smellie: Compared to the last four budgets, this year's reflects an economy moving out of recession and into calmer waters... Yet if the fastest annual growth rate we can expect over the next two years is 3 percent - with the Christchurch rebuild in full swing - then you'd have to say New Zealand's underlying low-growth problem is far from fixed. More>>

Auckland Discord: Govt’s Power Hungry Housing Approach A Threat - Labour

Last week the Government said this, ‘The Government commits not to use any proposed or existing powers ... to override the council's planning and consenting processes’. But its housing Bill says this; ‘If an accord cannot be reached in an area of severe housing unaffordability, the Government can intervene by establishing special housing areas and issuing consents for developers’. More>>

ALSO:

• NZ Govt - Housing accords legislation passes first reading - Legislation For Housing Accords, Land Supply - Housing package improves affordability, access
• Greens - Budget numbers show National’s failure on home affordability
• Auckland Chamber of Commerce - Budget 2013: Housing intervention needed
• Out-Link - Gareth Morgan: Response to housing problem limp-wristed
• Earlier, Pre-Budget - Auckland Accord announced

Extending Protest Ban, Relaxing Permit Rules: Govt Abuses Urgency To Extend Anadarko Amendment

The Government is trying to pass legislation under urgency which would make the Anadarko Amendment – which limits protest at sea – apply to an additional 1.7 million square kilometres, the Green Party said today. More>>

ALSO:

• Parliament Today - Parliament Resumes To Pass Budget Bills
• Labour - Government to extend protest ban
• Greenpeace NZ - Oil Companies Lacking ‘Expertise’ and ‘Financial Ability’ Set to Be Handed Drilling Permits
• 2010 image via: Pacific.Scoop - Media watcher gives NZ press nil score card for China oil spill coverage