Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Chambers [2016] NZHC 2534 (21 October 2016)

Last Updated: 26 December 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV 2014-404-002597 [2016] NZHC 2534

BETWEEN	THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Judgment Creditor
AND	PAUL FRANCIS CHAMBERS Judgment Debtor

Hearing:	21 October 2016
Appearances:	K B Chin for the Commissioner P F Chambers the Judgment Debtor in person
Judgment:	21 October 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE CHRISTIANSEN

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v P F CHAMBERS [2016] NZHC 2534 [21 October 2016]

Judgment

[1] When this matter was called this morning, I advised Mr Chambers that I had read his submissions and those of Mr Chin on behalf of the Commissioner; and that it seemed to the Court that the requirements of s 13 of the Insolvency Act 2006 had been met; and therefore an order for adjudication should be made unless as per s 37 of that Act, the Court can be satisfied the debt will be paid, or that it is just and reasonable to refuse to make the order.

[2] It seems to the Court that there was no acceptable challenge to the claim of the debt due of about $160,000 plus interest which has accrued since the judgment against Mr Chambers was issued in May 2014.

[3] It is clear by the material filed Mr Chambers’ advances a technical point by which he asserts that those parties who have sworn affidavits or who have participated in the process of handling his financial hardship applications have not acted with proper authority of the Commissioner.

[4] In the Court’s view the provisions of the Tax Administration Act 1994 and the State Sector Act 1988 prevail to authorise the actions undertaken by the persons concerned.

[5] Mr Chambers challenged the accuracy of the GST assessments but provides no evidence to show that they are incorrect. In any event there is a process for challenge which Mr Chambers has not availed himself of.

[6] Applications for financial hardship have twice been declined. It is not this Court’s purpose at this time to provide a means to review those decisions. Nor has there been any other review of them undertaken.

[7] Section 37 of the Insolvency Act 2006 enables the Court to refuse adjudication if satisfied a debtor is able to pay its debts or if it is just and equitable to refuse such an order.
[8] Mr Chambers’ personal circumstances are unfortunate. Health issues and family care issues impose significant obligations. In the course of the hearing the Court accepted an invitation from Mr Chambers’ accountant to provide an explanation about how the business management of Mr Chambers’ affairs could better be handled. The Court had the advantage of reading a report from the accountant beforehand. At the conclusion of discussion it became apparent that there could be no certainty about when, if at all, the present debt could be cleared.

[9] Mr Chambers is a legal practitioner but the loss of a practising certificate should not prevent other reasonable employment opportunities being available to him.

[10] There is in the Court’s view otherwise nothing by Mr Chambers’ opposition that persuades the Court that it is unjust or inequitable to grant adjudication.

[11] The application for adjudication is granted. The time of the order is 10:28am.

[12] The Commissioner’s costs are awarded on a 2B basis together with disbursements, to be approved.

Associate Judge Christiansen