MUSUKU v THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2015] NZHC 1889
Because the appeal was dismissed, the respondent was successful and the appellant did not seek to be heard on costs, the Court awarded costs to the respondent on a 2B basis and allowed the disbursements claimed in the respondent's memorandum.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] NZHC 1889
- Parties
- Appellant: Jawahar Bhaskar Musuku; Respondent: The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 12 August 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under Section 72 of the District Courts Act 1947 / Costs Judgment (post Appeal)
- Outcome
- Costs awarded to the respondent
- Legal Topics
- Costs Awards, 2 B Costs Scale, Disbursements, High Court Rules R11.5
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Jawahar Bhaskar Musuku
Appellant
The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Section 72 of the District Courts Act 1947 / Costs Judgment (post Appeal)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether costs should be awarded to the respondent
- 2 Appropriate scale of costs (2B)
- 3 Whether disbursements should be awarded
Ratio Decidendi
Because the appeal was dismissed, the respondent was successful and the appellant did not seek to be heard on costs, the Court awarded costs to the respondent on a 2B basis and allowed the disbursements claimed in the respondent's memorandum.
Court Disposition
Costs awarded to the respondent
Orders
- Costs awarded to the respondent on a 2B basis as set out in the respondent's memorandum dated 29 July 2015
- Disbursements claimed by the respondent are awarded
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
MUSUKU v THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2015] NZHC 1889 [12 August 2015]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYCIV-2015-404-0006[2015] NZHC 1889UNDER Section 72 of the District Courts Act 1947BETWEEN JAWAHAR BHASKAR MUSUKUAppellantAND THE COMMISSIONER OF INLANDREVENUERespondentHearing: On the papersDate: 12 August 2015JUDGMENT AS TO COSTS OF THOMAS JThis judgment was delivered by me on 12 August 2015 at 11.00 ampursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarDate:.[1] By my decision dated 26 June 2015 I dismissed the appellant's appeal andawarded costs to the respondent, indicating my view that costs should be on a 2B basis.[2] The appellant was directed to file a memorandum within 21 days of the date of the decision if the appellant sought to be heard on the issue of costs.[3] The appellant has not filed a memorandum and the respondent now seeks costs on a 2B basis together with expenses.[4] Costs are awarded to the respondent on a 2B basis as set out in its memorandum dated 29 July 2015. I am satisfied that the disbursements sought by the respondent should in the circumstances be awarded._______________________Thomas J