New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Gst recovery

Legal area

Court

19 Sept 2022

WU v STALIX PROPERTY LIMITED [2022] NZHC 2398

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2398
Court

High Court

Both the possession opposition and Mr Wu's separate proceeding to overturn the Registrar sale were hopeless and an abuse of process; accordingly indemnity costs were appropriate under r 14.6(4)(a). The court awarded indemnity costs and recoverable disbursements, allowed GST inclusive recovery because the claimants were not GST registered, but reduced the claimed office expense to a reasonable fixed amount ($115) after requiring particulars.
6 Aug 2020

NEW ZEALAND BLOODSTOCK FINANCE & LEASING LTD v JONES (COSTS) [2020] NZHC 1962

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1962
Court

High Court

Contractual indemnities limited to 'enforcement' do not extend to costs of opposing leave to appeal or stay applications; the conduct did not meet the high threshold for indemnity costs under HCR 14.6(4)(a); accordingly indemnity costs were refused and costs awarded on 1B scale reduced to $5,406.00 with disbursements $349.24 (GST treatment contingent on registration).
4 Feb 2020

MATSUOKA v POLLAK [2020] NZHC 58

Citation

[2020] NZHC 58
Court

High Court

The respondent's actual costs and disbursements totalling NZD 63,624.77 were reasonably incurred and properly recoverable as indemnity costs; costs on costs were allowable; it was sufficient that the respondent informed the Court he could not recover GST and no hard proof of GST status was required; private insurance arrangements did not affect the award.
22 Sept 2016

STEEL & TUBE HOLDINGS LIMITED v HICKEY [2016] NZHC 2243

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2243
Court

High Court

Entry of summary judgment for the undisputed principal sums, interest and costs; dismissal of the claim for the invoiced disbursement ($4,851.42) because the invoice was facially disputable, lacked adequate evidential foundation (unexplained time entries, 'pro forma' heading, possible back-calculation), and required further evidence or a formal proof hearing to justify reasonableness.
17 Nov 2015

Muir v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2015] NZHC 2855

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2855
Court

High Court

The plaintiffs' proceedings were an abuse of process and effectively estopped by prior Supreme Court decisions, thereby justifying an award of indemnity/increased costs. The court assessed quantum by reference to Category 2 Band B and applied a 50% uplift as an appropriate measure of indemnity/increased costs; GST was not allowed and specific items (second counsel, appeal commencement) were disallowed. Costs were apportioned so that principal plaintiffs are liable for $26,566.50 and bankrupt/liquidated parties for $12,238.50, with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
22 Jul 2015

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v GLOBAL DEVELOPMENTS (WALTHAM) LIMITED [2015] NZHC 1697

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1697
Court

High Court

The Court appointed interim liquidators because the imminent receipt of significant sale proceeds created a real risk of dissipation by a director with a history of asset stripping, the appointment was necessary to preserve asset value and protect creditor and public revenue interests, and the Commissioner, as prospective creditor, showed sufficient grounds under s241; accordingly appointment without undertaking was justified and the interim liquidators were granted the powers and fee approvals sought.
18 Jul 2013

DUNEDIN CATERING SUPPLIES v MR CHIPS LIMITED [2013] NZHC 1815

Citation

(2013) 21 PRNZ 798
Court

High Court

Respondent was contractually entitled to indemnity (solicitor/client) costs; having regard to the non-profit rule, High Court Rules r14.6 and r14.12, and evidence that the respondent was GST-registered and could claim input credits, GST must be excluded from the indemnity award; the fees and disbursements exclusive of GST were reasonable and the applicant was ordered to pay $10,749.86.
22 Feb 2011

STOCKCO LIMITED V DENIZE & Anor HC AK CIV-2010-404-5668

Citation

openlaw-5224667b_df9a_4adc_9b2b_61697cb6700f.pdf
Court

High Court

The defendants waived the arbitration clause by submitting to the court's jurisdiction; StockCo was entitled to recover the principal sum advanced including GST as the defendants concede liability for the advance; the claim for interest could not be resolved on summary judgment because the contract did not clearly authorize a unilateral fixation of rate and there was a disputed oral agreement on rate, so interest must be litigated; indemnity costs are contractually available in principle but quantum is reserved for assessment.