COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v REDCLIFFE FORESTRY VENTURE LTD [2014] NZHC 2167
Because there was no substantive ground to refuse costs, the defendant's objection to the costs schedule was addressed by an amended schedule, and there was little difference between actual and scale costs, the court ordered costs in favour of the plaintiff on a 2B basis in accordance with the amended Schedule B.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] NZHC 2167
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Commissioner of Inland Revenue; Defendant: Redcliffe Forestry Venture Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 9 September 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Tax Proceeding / Costs Application Following Refusal of Stay and Restraint Application
- Outcome
- Order for costs in favour of the plaintiff on a 2B basis.
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Proceedings, Injunction Against Advertising, Costs on Scale (2 B), Indemnity Costs
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Plaintiff
Redcliffe Forestry Venture Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Tax Proceeding / Costs Application Following Refusal of Stay and Restraint Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether to award costs to the plaintiff
- 2 Appropriate scale of costs (whether 2B or indemnity)
- 3 Whether any objection to the costs schedule precludes an order
Ratio Decidendi
Because there was no substantive ground to refuse costs, the defendant's objection to the costs schedule was addressed by an amended schedule, and there was little difference between actual and scale costs, the court ordered costs in favour of the plaintiff on a 2B basis in accordance with the amended Schedule B.
Court Disposition
Order for costs in favour of the plaintiff on a 2B basis.
Orders
- Costs awarded to Commissioner of Inland Revenue on a 2B basis in accordance with Schedule B attached to counsel's memorandum of 5 September 2014.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v REDCLIFFE FORESTRY VENTURE LTD [2014] NZHC 2167 [9 September 2014]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYCIV-2013-404-004880[2014] NZHC 2167BETWEEN COMMISSIONER OF INLANDREVENUEPlaintiffAND REDCLIFFE FORESTRY VENTURELIMITEDDefendantHearing: On the papersJudgment: 9 September 2014JUDGMENT OF COURTNEY JThis judgment was delivered by Justice Courtneyon 9 September 2014 at 3.00 pmpursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court RulesRegistrar / Deputy RegistrarDate.[1] In my decision 11 August 2014 I refused the defendant's application to staythe present proceedings and restrain advertising of them.1 I indicated that the plaintiff could file a memorandum on costs, which she has done and to which the defendant has replied.[2] Although the plaintiff has indicated a view that indemnity costs would be justified, she recognises that because there is very little difference between here actual costs and scale costs on a 2B basis, the preferable course is to simply seek costs on a 2B basis.[3] There is no ground for objection to that (the plaintiff having provided an amended schedule that recognised one objection raised by the defendant). It therefore make an order for costs on a 2B basis in favour of the plaintiff inaccordance with Schedule B attached to counsel's memorandum of 5 September2014.____________________P Courtney J1 Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Redcliffe Forestry Venture Ltd [2014] NZHC 1877.