ARAI KORP LIMITED v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2013] NZHC 1518
The Commissioner was entitled to costs; the claimed amounts were properly itemised and consistent with the High Court Rules including allowance for accommodation, and the applicant's failure to comply with the timetable and to file a costs memorandum justified entering judgment for the Commissioner in the sum claimed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] NZHC 1518
- Parties
- Applicant: ARAI KORP LIMITED; Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 21 June 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review of a Decision Under S 113 Tax Administration Act 1994 / Costs Determination Following Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment for costs and disbursements in favour of the Commissioner and against the applicant in the sum of $34,669.33
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Tax Administration, Costs Assessment, Disbursements, High Court Rules
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
ARAI KORP LIMITED
Applicant
COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of a Decision Under S 113 Tax Administration Act 1994 / Costs Determination Following Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Commissioner was entitled to costs
- 2 Whether the quantum of costs and disbursements claimed was appropriate and in accordance with the High Court Rules
- 3 Whether the applicant's failure to file a costs memorandum and to comply with the timetable affected the costs decision
Ratio Decidendi
The Commissioner was entitled to costs; the claimed amounts were properly itemised and consistent with the High Court Rules including allowance for accommodation, and the applicant's failure to comply with the timetable and to file a costs memorandum justified entering judgment for the Commissioner in the sum claimed.
Court Disposition
Judgment for costs and disbursements in favour of the Commissioner and against the applicant in the sum of $34,669.33
Orders
- Judgment for costs and disbursements in favour of the Commissioner and against the applicant in the sum of $34,669.33
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
ARAI KORP LIMITED v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2013] NZHC 1518 [21 June 2013]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDHAMILTON REGISTRYCIV 2011-419-001243[2013] NZHC 1518UNDER the Judicature Amendment Act 1972IN THE MATTER of an application for judicial review of adecision made pursuant to s 113 of the TaxAdministration Act 1994BETWEEN ARAI KORP LIMITEDApplicantAND COMMISSIONER OF INLANDREVENUERespondentHearing: (on the papers)Appearances: J Moroney for the ApplicantH Ebersohn and T Lamb for the CommissionerJudgment: 21 June 2013[COSTS] JUDGMENT OF WYLIE JThis judgment was delivered by Justice WylieOn 21 June 2013 at 4.00 pmPursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarDate:Counsel:J Moroney, AucklandH Ebersohn and T Lamb, Wellington[1] I refer to my substantive judgment in this matter issued on 3 May 2013. In that judgment, I declined the applicant's application for judicial review. I noted that the respondent Commissioner was entitled to costs, and put in place a timetable requiring the filing of memoranda in that regard.[2] The Commissioner has filed a memorandum dated 17 May 2013. She seeks costs on a 2B basis. An itemised calculation has been undertaken, referring to each of the relevant steps set out in the High Court Rules. Total costs sought are $33,133.50. In addition, disbursements are sought of $1,535.83 — a total of $34,669.33.[3] No memorandum has been received from the applicant in response. This is in breach of the timetable order which I imposed. I asked the Registrar to make inquiry of the applicant's counsel. She has done so. I am advised that counsel has not received any instructions to file a costs memorandum.[4] In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Commissioner's claim for costs isappropriate. Each of the steps detailed in the memorandum appear to have been taken and the amount claimed is appropriate, and in accordance with the relevant provisions in the High Court Rules. Further, the disbursements claimed are appropriate, and not excessive. It is appropriate that they should include an allowance for accommodation.[5] I enter judgment for costs and disbursements in favour of the Commissioner and against the applicant in the sum of $34,669.33._________________________Wylie J