Crazy Law

Crazy Law Welcome to my corner of the digital world! QUESTIONS - 2011

Where did you grow up? I attended primary schools in several towns all over South Africa. Yes.

This page is a reflection of who I am—a writer crafting stories, a social media creator connecting with audiences, and a dedicated sportsperson passionate about discipline and teamwork. These towns include Worcester, Riversdale, Groblersdal, Witsieshoek, and Kestell. I attended Harrismith High school for the whole term of my high school. What did you study in order to qualify for your current posi

tion? I studied at UNISA from 1985 to 1994 obtaining the degrees B.Iuris and LL.B

Tell me about your business. What is your role? I am a non-practicing attorney – giving free legal advice. You worked as a government lawyer in South Africa for many years. Did this provide you with valuable experience in the field? I worked 14 years for the Department of Justice as a prosecutor and legal administration officer (Advocate) As Advocate part of my duty was to give the Director-General and the Minister of Justice legal advice on various types of matters, including advice on legislation, regulations and civil and criminal legal questions. Was it difficult for you to transition from the South African to the British legal system? Not at all. The systems are very similar. Was it difficult to establish yourself as a South African in a UK market? I completed my bridging exams and worked for other UK firms over a period of 3 years doing various types of legal work. I have established my own firm and have taken every instruction seriously. I do all relevant research properly to be able to assist each and every client appropriately. I sincerely believe that if you put in hard work you will reap the results. Why did you decide to return to South Africa? I had my own law firm in South Africa doing mainly personal injury cases. I sold my business after being advised by the Law Society that the Government was going to change legislation making it unprofitable to do this type of law. I decided to relocate to the UK to broaden my legal experience. I have returned to South Africa after about 9 years. I have gained a lot of UK experience, working both for the Government and the Private Sector. I missed my country. What is your vision for your company? I want to be known for offering free legal advice. No one should suffer because they do not have the means to afford a lawyer. What’s the most important lesson you have learnt about business? Never count your chickens until they have hatched. INDEMNITY
The contents of the webpage are for people and organisations who are looking for free legal advice. The information on this webpage is subject to debate, completion and modification and you should not rely on the contents of this webpage. I make no representations as to the correctness or completeness of the contents of the webpage;
I Accept no liability if you make any decision which turn out to be wrong or use a form or information which are wrong and is based on the contents of the webpage;
I shall not be liable for any damage or loss arising from or otherwise in connection with your use of my webpage;
I do not warrant that functions available on this webpage will be uninterrupted or error free, or that faults will be rectified, or that the server that makes it available is free of hacking, fishing, viruses or bugs. You acknowledge that it is your responsibility to implement inter alia sufficient procedures and virus checks to satisfy your particular requirements for privacy and the accuracy of data input and output. The meaning of the word webpage in the above context is wide and also refers to a website. Anthonie Van Bosch

27/05/2026
27/05/2026

Court Portal Glitch? Don't Appeal to the Supreme Court!

Did a Ministry of Justice website glitch delete your court files? Before you waste money trying to appeal to the NZ Supreme Court, watch this.

[Summary]
Navigating digital justice in New Zealand can be a nightmare when technology fails. In this video, we break down why appealing a portal error or software bug directly to the Supreme Court under the Senior Courts Act 2016 is a legal dead end. Under Rule 5A, the Registrar will summarily reject your filing, costing you a $468 filing fee and weeks of critical legal time.

We outline the exact step-by-step procedural framework required to save your lawsuit, including how to gather cryptographic proof (bank receipts and system logs) and file an urgent interlocutory application at the local High Court registry to get your documents backdated.

👇 Resources & Links* Download the Interlocutory Application Template: https://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/going-to-court/without-a-lawyer/representing-yourself-civil-high-court/documents-prescribed-forms-and-useful-templates/

Ministry of Justice Fee Waiver Info: https://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/going-to-court/court-fees/apply-for-help-to-pay-court-fees/


⏱️ Timestamps

00:00 - The Temptation to Appeal Directly to the Top** *Understanding the immediate frustration when local court files disappear and why jumping straight to the apex court feels justified.*

00:46 - Rule 5A & The Jurisdictional Test** *How the New Zealand court system operates on strict statutory procedures rather than emotional validation, and the role of the Registrar as a gatekeeper.*

02:04 - The Rigid Hierarchy of the Law** *A visual breakdown of Section 70 of the Senior Courts Act, illustrating the mandatory, step-by-step ladder of the appellate process.*

02:51 - Administrative Errors vs. Judicial Decisions** *Analyzing Section 69 to explain why a software glitch or portal deletion is classified as a registry oversight rather than a judge's ruling.*

03:50 - Step-by-Step Guide to a Local Remedy** *The exact protocol for gathering cryptographic evidence, bank receipts, and logs to file an urgent interlocutory application at the High Court registry.*

04:36 - Sledgehammer vs. Key: The Final Matrix** *Comparing the costly risks of an apex court rejection against the high-return efficiency of unglamorous procedural compliance.*

Hashtags:

Backend Tags: NZ Law, New Zealand Court, Supreme Court Rules, Rule 5A, Senior Courts Act, Tenancy Tribunal, Ministry of Justice Glitch, Self Represented Litigant, Interlocutory Application, Court Registry, Legal Tech Error, Suprime Court, Minstry of Justice, High Court NZ

26/05/2026

Stop Bypassing the Formal Tax Dispute Process! (2026).

Can an internal government report override a finalized tax bill? In this breakdown of McGuire v Commissioner, discover why a $40,000 tax dispute failed at the Supreme Court.

[Detailed Summary]
In this video, we dissect the landmark case of Jeremy McGuire v Commissioner of Inland Revenue. We look closely at how the Disputes Review Unit (DRU) internal findings conflicted with the final assessment, and why the Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

We dive deep into:
Section 109 of the Tax Administration Act 1994: Why skipping the designated statutory process strips general courts of their jurisdiction.
The Tannadyce Precedent: How previous Supreme Court rulings establish that internal DRU guidelines are non-binding on the final tax amount.
The Deed of Settlement Trap: Why signing a formal contract acknowledging tax liability permanently closes the door on future judicial reviews.

Read the Case here:https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2026/2026-NZSC-52.pdf

🔔 Subscribe for more high-stakes legal and financial breakdowns

[Timestamps / Chapters]

00:00 - The $40K Tax Mistake
An immediate hook presenting the financial stakes of Jeremy McGuire's legal battle.

00:08 - Supreme Court Appeal Explained
An introduction to the Supreme Court of New Zealand as the backdrop for this final legal challenge.

00:25 - Understanding the DRU Investigation
A breakdown of the Commissioner's Disputes Review Unit (DRU) and its internal findings.

00:35 - Internal Findings vs. Final Assessment
A comparative look at why the government's official tax assessment exceeded its internal estimates.

00:58 - Is the DRU a Judicial Body?
Explaining the legal status of the DRU as an administrative process rather than a court of law.

01:10 - The Tannadyce Precedent
How the 2011 Tannadyce Investments Ltd v Inland Revenue ruling defines DRU guidelines.

01:37 - The Pitfalls of Standard Judicial Review
Why bypassing the specific tax dispute regime weakened McGuire’s standing.

01:47 - Section 109: Statutory Limits
An analysis of the Tax Administration Act 1994 and its restrictions on general court challenges.

01:59 - Case Dismissed: Lack of Jurisdiction
Why the District Court ruled it had no power to evaluate the merits of the tax bill.

02:32 - High Court Appeal & The Deed of Settlement
The legal consequences of signing a formal settlement acknowledging tax liabilities.

03:13 - Supreme Court Verdict & New Evidence Rules
Why the highest court bars the introduction of fresh evidence during a final appeal.

03:53 - Project Credits & Creative Team
Closing production notes and technical contributors behind the case presentation.



McGuire v Commissioner, Jeremy McGuire tax case, Tax Administration Act 1994, Section 109 tax law, Inland Revenue New Zealand, DRU report tax, Tannadyce Investments, judicial review tax assessment, Supreme Court NZ, legal case study, tax dispute regime, tax lawsuit breakdown, Mcguire v IRD, Commissioner of Inland Revenue, Macguire tax case

26/05/2026

Can you legally suppress a secret that is already online?

Explore New Zealand’s landmark Supreme Court ruling on open justice and Ponzi schemes.

In this case explainer, we break down the high-stakes legal battle of UV Limited v AB Limited [2026] NZSC 31. When the Penrich Global Macro Fund collapsed, exposing a massive fraudulent Ponzi scheme run by Kelly Tonkin, a complex legal dilemma emerged. The District Court granted permanent name suppression to protect the victims under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. However, when angry investors launched civil lawsuits to recover millions, a critical question arose: did using real names in civil pleadings violate criminal name suppression?

Furthermore, because director WX had already given online media interviews, the internet never forgot their identities. Discover how the High Court, Court of Appeal, and ultimately the Supreme Court evaluated the principle of "Open Justice" vs. privacy rights, applying the landmark "Erceg Test" to financial and reputational impacts.

📊 Key Moments & Chapters

00:00 - Suppression Broken: A Fight for Open Justice

00:24 - The Collapse of the Penrich Ponzi Scheme

00:38 - The Shield of Criminal Name Suppression

00:52 - The Accidental Media Exposure

01:08 - Criminal Law vs. Civil Law: A New Legal Battle

01:21 - The Core Legal Dilemma Explained

01:38 - Climbing the Ladder of New Zealand Courts

01:51 - Two Critical Questions for the Supreme Court

02:09 - What Does 'Relating To' Mean in Law?

02:21 - The Supreme Court Finds No Breach

02:37 - The Principle of Open Justice in NZ

02:52 - The 'Erceg' Test for Balancing Rights

03:09 - Fatal Law: The Internet Never Forgets

03:23 - The Final Verdict & Cost Orders

03:39 - Open Justice in the Digital Age: Key Takeaways

🔗 Resources & Connections

Read the Full Judgment Paper:https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2026/2026-NZSC-31.pdf

UV Limited v AB Limited, NZSC 31 2026, Penrich Fund Ponzi, Kelly Tonkin fraud, name suppression NZ, open justice New Zealand, Erceg test case, Criminal Procedure Act 2011, civil vs criminal lawsuit, legal case explainer, NZ Supreme Court decisions, financial fraud law, suppress a secret online, UV Ltd, AB Ltd, Penrich Global Macro Fund

Court

Address

Moorreesburg

Telephone

0769818095

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Crazy Law posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share

Category