Arai Korp Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue

[2013] NZHC 1518

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CIV 2011-419-001243 [2013] NZHC 1518

UNDER  the Judicature Amendment Act 1972

IN THE MATTER             of an application for judicial review of a decision made pursuant to s 113 of the Tax Administration Act 1994

BETWEEN  ARAI KORP LIMITED Applicant

ANDCOMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Respondent

Hearing:                   (on the papers)

Appearances:           J Moroney for the Applicant

H Ebersohn and T Lamb for the Commissioner

Judgment:                21 June 2013

[COSTS] JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Wylie

On 21 June 2013 at 4.00 pm

Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:

Counsel:

J Moroney, Auckland

H Ebersohn and T Lamb, Wellington

ARAI KORP LIMITED v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2013] NZHC 1518 [21 June 2013]

[1]      I refer to my substantive judgment in this matter issued on 3 May 2013.  In that judgment, I declined the applicant’s application for judicial review.  I noted that the respondent Commissioner was entitled to costs, and put in place a timetable requiring the filing of memoranda in that regard.

[2]      The Commissioner has filed a memorandum dated 17 May 2013.  She seeks costs on a 2B basis.  An itemised calculation has been undertaken, referring to each of  the  relevant  steps  set  out  in  the  High Court  Rules.    Total  costs  sought  are

$33,133.50.    In  addition,  disbursements  are  sought  of  $1,535.83  —  a  total  of

$34,669.33.

[3]      No memorandum has been received from the applicant in response. This is in breach of the timetable order which I imposed.  I asked the Registrar to make inquiry of the applicant’s counsel.   She has done so.   I am advised that counsel has not received any instructions to file a costs memorandum.

[4]      In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Commissioner’s claim for costs is appropriate.   Each of the steps detailed in the memorandum appear to have been taken and the amount claimed is appropriate, and in accordance with the relevant provisions  in  the  High Court  Rules.     Further,  the  disbursements  claimed  are appropriate,  and  not  excessive.    It  is  appropriate  that  they  should  include  an allowance for accommodation.

[5]      I enter judgment for costs and disbursements in favour of the Commissioner and against the applicant in the sum of $34,669.33.

Wylie J