Jump to content
Main menu
Main menu
move to sidebar
hide
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
freem
Search
Search
Appearance
Create account
Log in
Personal tools
Create account
Log in
Pages for logged out editors
learn more
Contributions
Talk
Editing
Openai/6949bcc7-bd58-8011-ab73-2722cffa14fe
(section)
Add languages
Page
Discussion
English
Read
Edit
Edit source
View history
Tools
Tools
move to sidebar
hide
Actions
Read
Edit
Edit source
View history
General
What links here
Related changes
Special pages
Page information
Appearance
move to sidebar
hide
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==== ⚖️ How the justice system let him down (simplified) ==== Here’s a plain-English breakdown of where things went wrong from Hampton’s perspective: ===== 1. Promises by IRD weren’t honored ===== Hampton claims IRD told him penalties would be paused while waiting for refunds he was owed — but this wasn’t followed through, and the debt ballooned. That’s where his major economic harm began. Tax Technical<ref>{{cite web|title=Tax Technical|url=https://www.taxtechnical.ird.govt.nz/case-summaries/2006/commissioner-directed-to-consider-remission-of-penalties-and-interest|publisher=Tax Technical|access-date=2025-12-23}}</ref> ===== 2. Legal process was extremely slow ===== His battle has run for more than 20 years. That’s far too long for someone to resolve a tax dispute — especially one that fundamentally affected his businesses and finances. Tax Technical<ref>{{cite web|title=Tax Technical|url=https://www.taxtechnical.ird.govt.nz/case-summaries/2009/taxpayers-refused-leave-to-appeal-to-supreme-court|publisher=Tax Technical|access-date=2025-12-23}}</ref> ===== 3. Self-representation hurt his case ===== Hampton tried to represent himself in complicated civil claims involving multiple defendants in multiple courts. Judges repeatedly said his legal documents were unclear and difficult to understand, and that he needed qualified lawyers to proceed. For example, the Court of Appeal said he must hire counsel for the misfeasance claim to continue. Tax Technical<ref>{{cite web|title=Tax Technical|url=https://www.taxtechnical.ird.govt.nz/case-summaries/2012/sufficient-argument-to-decline-strike-out|publisher=Tax Technical|access-date=2025-12-23}}</ref> ===== 4. Bankruptcy made everything worse ===== Because he ended up bankrupt — partly from legal costs — he lost ownership of the legal claims themselves (they belonged to the Official Assignee), meaning he couldn’t pursue them personally later. This was a major setback caused not by merits, but by bankruptcy law. Tax Technical<ref>{{cite web|title=Tax Technical|url=https://www.taxtechnical.ird.govt.nz/-/media/project/ir/tt/pdfs/case-summaries/csum-21-01.pdf|publisher=Tax Technical|access-date=2025-12-23}}</ref> ===== 5. Appeals were regularly refused ===== Supreme Court and Court of Appeal refusals meant he couldn’t get more judicial oversight on decisions that he believed were unfair or incorrect. Courts of New Zealand<ref>{{cite web|title=Courts of New Zealand|url=https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2020/2020-NZSC-123.pdf|publisher=Courts of New Zealand|access-date=2025-12-23}}</ref>
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to freem are considered to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (see
Freem:Copyrights
for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource.
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)