Hoeberechts v Commissioner of Inland Revenue

Case [2023] NZHC 597


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV 2021-419-288

[2023] NZHC 597

UNDER The Income Tax Act 2007, the Tax Administration Act 1994 and s 56(3) of the Senior Courts Act 2016

IN THE MATTER OF

An application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal

BETWEEN

VERONICA ANNE HOEBERECHTS

Applicant

AND

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Respondent

On the papers

Counsel:

The applicant in person

K Naik-Leong for the respondent

Judgment:

23 March 2023


JUDGMENT OF CAMPBELL J

[Costs]


This judgment was delivered by me on 23 March 2023 at 11.00 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

HOEBERECHTS v THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2023] NZHC 597 [23 March 2023]

[1]    In a judgment dated 5 January 2023,1 I declined Ms Hoeberechts’s application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal my earlier judgment in which I declined her application for leave to appeal out of time to this Court.2 I also ordered that the Commissioner was entitled to costs on the application.

[2]    The Commissioner filed a memorandum seeking costs on a 2B basis together with reasonable disbursements. The total amount sought is $5,636.13.

[3]    Ms Hoeberechts filed a memorandum in response. She submits that the costs awarded to the Commissioner (in both of my two judgments) should not be borne   by her but should instead be borne by counsel for the Commissioner, by the Commissioner and/or by the Hamilton High Court. Ms Hoeberechts submits those persons should bear the costs because they should have realised that r 1.18 of the High Court Rules 2016 was engaged at the time she filed her original notice of appeal in the High Court.

[4]    In my judgment dated 5 January 2023, I held that r 1.18 was not engaged.3    I therefore reject Ms Hoeberechts’ submission.

[5]I order that Ms Hoeberechts is to pay costs and disbursements totalling

$5,636.13 to the Commissioner.


Campbell J


1      Hoeberechts v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2023] NZHC 1.

2      Hoeberechts v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2022] NZHC 2200.

3      Hoeberechts v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2023] NZHC 1 at [20].

Details
AGLC
Hoeberechts v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2023] NZHC 597
Case
[2023] NZHC 597
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hoeberechts v Commissioner of Inland Revenue, Veronica Anne Hoeberechts sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the High Court's earlier decision denying her leave to appeal out of time. The Commissioner of Inland Revenue opposed the application and sought costs on a 2B basis, totalling $5,636.13. Ms Hoeberechts contested the imposition of these costs, arguing that they should be borne by others, including counsel for the Commissioner, the Commissioner, and the Hamilton High Court, due to their alleged failure to recognize the applicability of rule 1.18 of the High Court Rules 2016 at the time of her original notice of appeal.

The court was tasked with determining whether the costs awarded to the Commissioner should be paid by Ms Hoeberechts or if they should be borne by other parties. The central issue was whether rule 1.18 of the High Court Rules 2016 was applicable, which would shift the responsibility for costs away from Ms Hoeberechts. The court previously held in its 5 January 2023 judgment that rule 1.18 was not engaged, a finding Ms Hoeberechts contested in her memorandum.

In the 23 March 2023 judgment, Campbell J rejected Ms Hoeberechts’ submission, confirming the earlier ruling that rule 1.18 was not engaged. Consequently, the court ordered that Ms Hoeberechts must pay the costs and disbursements totalling $5,636.13 to the Commissioner.

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.