Hanson v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
[2019] NZHC 2709
•24 October 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CIV-2019-404-40
[2019] NZHC 2709
UNDER THE Income Tax Act 2007 and the Tax Administration Act 1994 IN THE MATTER OF
An appeal against the decision of the Taxation Review Authority
BETWEEN
CAROLYN ANDREA HANSON
Appellant
AND
COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
Respondent
On the papers: at Auckland Judgment:
24 October 2019
JUDGMENT OF POWELL J
[Costs]
This judgment was delivered by me on 24 October 2019 at 3.30 pm pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:
Solicitors/Counsel: Crown Solicitor, Wellington Copy: C Hanson
HANSON v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2019] NZHC 2709 [24 October 2019]
[1] On 21 August 2019 I declined an application by the appellant, Carolyn Hanson, to set aside a consent order for payment of security for costs and/or to stay the appeal pending payment of security for costs.1 The judgment provided that security for costs was to be paid by Ms Hanson on or before 5 pm on 27 August 2019 and, in the event that security was not paid, the appeal would stand dismissed.2 Costs on the application were ordered in favour of the respondent Commissioner of Inland Revenue on a 2B basis.3 In the event, Ms Hanson failed to pay security for costs as directed with the result that her appeal was dismissed in accordance with the unless order.
[2] Following the dismissal of the appeal the Commissioner has sought costs on both the interlocutory application and substantive appeal. Ms Hanson opposes the application and submits the costs sought “are totally unreasonable and out of line with reality”. Specifically, Ms Hanson suggests that it was not appropriate for two counsel to represent the Commissioner and that the time counsel “allocated to the tasks is ridiculous”.
[3] Having considered the claims by the Commissioner it is apparent that not only has the Commissioner not sought to make a claim in respect of second counsel for either the interlocutory application or the substantive proceedings, but the amounts sought are entirely in accordance with the Schedule of Fees Payable in the High Court Fees Regulations 2013. Specifically, in respect of the defended interlocutory application, none of the amounts claimed is objectionable and I accept Ms Chang’s submissions on behalf of the Commissioner, that it was appropriate for Ms Chang to appear for the Commissioner given her knowledge of the file, having appeared on behalf of the Commissioner at the Taxation Review Authority in circumstances where the merits of the appeal were clearly relevant.4
[4] Likewise, while the amount claimed by the Commissioner in respect of the substantive appeal superficially appears high, it is once again consistent with the Schedule of Fees Payable set out in the High Court Fees Regulations 2013. The quantum of costs more particularly reflects the fact that a number of calls of the appeal
1 Hanson v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2019] NZHC 2052.
2 At [14].
3 At [15].
4 See Hanson v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2019] NZHC 2052 at [10].
were required and/or memoranda filed in preparation for scheduled conferences; initially so as to give Ms Hanson time to instruct counsel, and then further time for her to pay security for costs.
[5] I therefore conclude that the costs sought by the Commissioner are appropriate and make the following orders:
(a)In respect of the Commissioner’s claim for costs on the interlocutory application, Carolyn Hanson is to pay the Commissioner costs in the sum of $6,094.50 together with disbursements in the sum of $1,020.44
– a total of $7,114.94.
(b)In respect of the Commissioner’s claim for costs on the substantive appeal, Carolyn Hanson is to pay the Commissioner costs in the sum of
$7,121 together with disbursements in the sum of $43.48 – a total of
$7,164.48.
[6]The total amount payable by Ms Hanson to the Commissioner is therefore
$14,279.42.
Powell J
0