Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Chesterfields Preschools Limited (in interim liquidation)

[2019] NZHC 1644

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2015-409-000043

[2019] NZHC 1644

UNDER

the Companies Act 1993

BETWEEN

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Plaintiff

AND

CHESTERFIELDS PRESCHOOLS

LIMITED (in interim liquidation) First Defendant

AND

THERESE ANNE SISSON

Second Defendant

Appearances:

P Shamy, S M Kinsler and C L Russell for Plaintiff B M Russell and J C Wedlake for First Defendant T A Sisson (Second Defendant) in person with

D Hampton (as McKenzie friend)

Judgment:

12 July 2019

(Determined on the papers)

JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE J

(Costs)

[1]                The first defendant (at that time in interim liquidation) was put into liquidation by order of this Court.1

[2]                The second defendant, as the active opponent of liquidation, was ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs and disbursements.2

1      Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Chesterfields Preschools Ltd [2019] NZHC 272.

2      Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Chesterfields Preschools Ltd, above n 1, at [211](e).

[3]                At the same time, the costs and disbursements of the first defendant itself were reserved.3

Submissions

[4]                Pursuant to directions made, Mr Russell filed submissions in relation to the first defendant’s costs and disbursements.

[5]                I accept, as submitted by Mr Russell, that as between the first defendant and Ms Sisson costs should follow the event. Ms Sisson was unsuccessful in the matters of defence which she raised. It would be inappropriate to leave the first defendant without a right of recovery for its costs and disbursements as to do so would be to reduce the company’s asset pool to the detriment of its creditor.

[6]                Two affidavits were filed by the first defendant but it does not seek costs in relation to those. Nor does Mr Russell suggest that a certificate for second counsel is appropriate.

[7]                The second defendant is entitled to its costs in relation to the two days of hearing on the same basis as costs have been ordered for the plaintiff, namely $4,460.

Order

[8]I order that the second defendant pay to the first defendant costs in the sum of

$4,460.

Osborne J

Solicitors:

Meredith Connell, Wellington Lane Neave, Christchurch Counsel: P Shamy, Christchurch Copy to: T A Sisson, Christchurch

3      Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Chesterfields Preschools Ltd, above n 1, at [211](f).