PROPERTY VENTURES LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) V THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE COA CA537/2010
The Court declined to order any uplift because appellants demonstrated a genuine intention to proceed and were partly handicapped by the Christchurch earthquakes; accordingly, it awarded the respondent standard appeal costs on a band A basis for all steps up to and including preparation for hearing, plus...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- COA CA537/2010
- Parties
- Appellant: Property Ventures Limited (In Receivership); Appellant: Atlas Food and Beverage Limited; Respondent: The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 9 March 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal (court of Appeal) / Costs Decision Following Abandonment of Appeals
- Outcome
- Allowed respondent's costs application to the extent of standard costs; uplift refused.
- Legal Topics
- Costs, Abandonment of Appeal, Court Timetabling and Directions
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Property Ventures Limited (In Receivership)
Appellant
Atlas Food and Beverage Limited
Appellant
The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal (court of Appeal) / Costs Decision Following Abandonment of Appeals
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an uplift to standard costs should be ordered to reflect breaches of timetable directions and last‑minute abandonment
- 2 What quantum and scope of costs are appropriate where respondent had filed submissions and prepared for hearing
Ratio Decidendi
The Court declined to order any uplift because appellants demonstrated a genuine intention to proceed and were partly handicapped by the Christchurch earthquakes; accordingly, it awarded the respondent standard appeal costs on a band A basis for all steps up to and including preparation for hearing, plus disbursements as fixed by the Registrar, one set for each appeal.
Court Disposition
Allowed respondent's costs application to the extent of standard costs; uplift refused.
Orders
- Appellant in each appeal must pay to the respondent costs as for a standard appeal on a band A basis for all steps up to and including preparation for the appeals.
- Payment of disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
PROPERTY VENTURES LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) V THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE COA CA537/2010 [9 March 2012]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA537/2010[2012] NZCA 84BETWEEN PROPERTY VENTURES LIMITED (INRECEIVERSHIP)AppellantAND THE COMMISSIONER OF INLANDREVENUERespondentCA795/2010AND BETWEEN ATLAS FOOD AND BEVERAGELIMITEDAppellantAND THE COMMISSIONER OF INLANDREVENUERespondentCourt: Randerson, Stevens and White JJCounsel: A J Forbes QC for AppellantsP H Courtney and A Goosen for RespondentJudgment: 9 March 2012 at 11.30 a.m.JUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe appellant in each of these appeals must pay to the respondent costs as for a standard appeal on a band A basis for all steps up to and including preparation for the appeals, together with disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.___________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Randerson J)[1] These two appeals were abandoned at the last moment at a point where the respondent had filed full submissions and had completed most of the preparation for the appeals. The respondent seeks costs against the appellant in each case and requests the Court to order an uplift of costs to take account of breaches by the appellants of timetable directions and the late abandonment of the appeals.[2] The appellants accept the costs allowed to the respondent should cover the normal preparation and steps taken by the respondent including the preparation and filing of submissions and attendance at the telephone conference on 3 February 2012. However, any increased costs are resisted.[3] We are not persuaded that there is any justification for an increased costs award since the appellants intended proceeding with the appeals and were handicapped, in part, by issues associated with the Christchurch earthquakes. However, we see no reason not to allow costs to the respondent (one set for each appeal) for all steps taken by the respondent up to and including preparation for hearing.[4] Accordingly, the appellant in each of these appeals must pay to the respondent costs as for a standard appeal on a band A basis for all steps up to and including preparation for the appeals, together with disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.Solicitors:Canterbury Legal Services Limited, Christchurch for AppellantsCrown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent