King v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue  NZDC 13748
Published 06 September 2019
Notice as to consequences of disobedience of Court order — District Court Rules 2014, r 19.66 — tax — inherent jurisdiction — Eden Group Ltd v Jackson 
At the request of the applicant, the registrar issued a notice as to consequences of disobedience of a Court order under Rule 19.66(2) of the District Court Rules.
The notice was issued in relation to a 2010 decision that set aside a judgment in respect of the applicant's tax liability. The present notice was issued on the basis
that the applicant alleged: (a) no costs were paid although costs were sought; (b) the IRD continued to make statements to other government departments that
the judgment debt was still owing, and; (c) that a charging order remained over his property.
The respondent submitted that the applicant was incorrect in fact and law. Specifically, that there was no costs order in place, that Rule 19.676 relates to
judgments or orders that are enforceable by committal (which the 2010 decision was not), and that 2010 decision did not direct the IRD Commissioner to remove
the charging order.
The Judge found the respondent's interpretation of Rule 19.66 was correct, holding there was no jurisdiction to issue the notice, which was improperly issued as a
consequence. No costs were ordered.
Judgment Date: 19 July 2019.