| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA |
| CA294/2018 [2019] NZCA 4 |
| BETWEEN | THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE |
| AND | NEW ORLEANS HOTEL (2011) LIMITED |
| Court: | Brown, Clifford and Gilbert JJ |
Counsel: | U R Jagose QC and M Deligiannis for Appellant |
Judgment: | 12 February 2019 at 11.00 am |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The appeal is allowed.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Brown J)
On 7 May 2018 Associate Judge Matthews delivered a judgment dismissing the Commissioner’s application for costs in the liquidation proceedings against the respondent on the basis he was bound by the reasoning of this Court in Joint Action Funding Ltd v Eichelbaum[1] and McGuire v Secretary for Justice.[2] Consequent upon the Supreme Court’s judgment allowing the appeal in McGuire v Secretary for Justice[3] the parties request that the Commissioner’s appeal be allowed. No orders for costs are sought in this Court or in the High Court.
[1]Joint Action Funding Ltd v Eichelbaum [2017] NZCA 249, [2018] 2 NZLR 70.
[2]McGuire v Secretary for Justice [2018] NZCA 37, [2018] 3 NZLR 71.
The parties consenting, the Commissioner’s appeal is allowed.
Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Appellant
Corcoran French, Christchurch for Respondent
- AGLC
- Commissioner of Inland Revenue v New Orleans Hotel (2011) Limited [2019] NZCA 4
- Case
- [2019] NZCA 4
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court found that the appeal should be allowed due to the Supreme Court’s subsequent judgment in McGuire v Secretary for Justice, which allowed the appeal in that case. The Court reasoned that given the change in the legal landscape, the Associate Judge's decision was no longer applicable, and the Commissioner should be granted the appeal. Both parties consented to the appeal being allowed without seeking any orders for costs in either the Court of Appeal or the High Court.
The final orders of the Court of Appeal allowed the Commissioner’s appeal. The decision signifies a shift in the legal precedent established by prior cases, reflecting the evolving interpretation of costs in liquidation proceedings under New Zealand law.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.