Anthony v Commissioner of Inland Revenue

[2025] NZHC 1720

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-002867

[2025] NZHC 1720

UNDER

Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016

BETWEEN

ROSHAN ANTHONY

First Applicant

SUMMIT SCAFFOLD NZ LIMITED
Second Applicant

AND

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Respondent

Hearing:

On the papers

Counsel:

A S Nair for Applicant

L K Worthing and D Ranchhod for Respondent

Judgment:

27 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF ANDREW J

[Costs]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Andrew on 27 June 2025 at 11.00 am

pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016 Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Date: ………………………………

ANTHONY v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2025] NZHC 1720 [27 June 2025]

Introduction

[1]                 In my substantive judgment of 30 May 2025,1 I dismissed all of the applicant’s claims (judicial review) against the respondent, the Commissioner of Inland Revenue.

[2]This judgment addresses the issue of costs.

[3]The Commissioner seeks costs and disbursements in the total sum of

$25,474.01.2

[4]                 The Commissioner’s position on costs is set out in a memorandum dated     19 June 2025. No submissions on costs have been filed by the applicants and despite a direction to do so by 20 June 2025.

Analysis and decision

[5]                 The principles to apply are well settled. They are set out in r 14.2 of the High Court Rules 2016. The primary principle is that the unsuccessful party should pay costs to the successful party (r 14.2(1)(a): costs follow the event).

[6]                 I find that the applicants should pay costs and disbursements to the Commissioner in the total sum of $25,474.01, as calculated in the schedule to the Commissioner’s memorandum.

[7]                 In my view, that quantum of costs properly reflects the complexity and significance of the proceedings based on a concept of reasonable recovery.3

[8]                 In this case the Commissioner was, of course, wholly successful and was put to the expense of defending the application.

[9]                 I also find that an allowance for second counsel should be made. The matters raised on behalf of both applicants were extensive and wide-ranging.4 I also

1      Anthony v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2025] NZHC 1382.

2      As detailed in a schedule to the Commissioner’s memorandum dated 19 June 2025.

3      High Court Rules 2016, r 14.2(1).

4      Anthony v Commissioner of Inland Revenue, above n 1, at [58].

acknowledge the Commissioner’s submission that, with respect to the steps claimed by analogy, those steps are claimed (and I find justified) on a band A basis to ensure no overreach.

Result

[10]              I order that the applicants are to pay costs and disbursements to the respondent, the Commissioner of Inland Revenue, in the total sum of $25,474.01.

Andrew J