Meates v Commissioner of Inland Revenue

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2023-409-483

[2024] NZHC 1895

BETWEEN
MARK JOSEPH WILLIAM MEATES

Appellant

AND

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

A S P Tobeck for the Appellant J A Beech for the Respondent

Judgment:

11 July 2024

JUDGMENT OF PRESTON J

(Costs)

This judgment was delivered by me on 11 July 2024 at 2.30 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

MEATES v THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2024] NZHC 1895 [11 July 2024]

[1] On 26 June 2024, I dismissed Mr Meates’ appeal against the order of the District Court striking out his statement of defence in tax debt proceedings and entering judgment in favour of the respondent, the Commissioner of Inland Revenue.1

[2] The Commissioner sought costs, but quantum was not addressed in the substantive submissions.

[3] Memoranda were directed within five working days, failing which an award on a 2B basis was indicated.

[4] Mr Meates has not filed a memorandum. The Commissioner has done so, appropriately seeking the lower amount of actual costs and disbursements totalling
$3,469.27, as counsel for the Commissioner Ms Beech is in-house counsel.2

[5] Costs and disbursements are awarded accordingly, as set out in the memorandum of counsel dated 1 July 2024, at [3].

………………………………………

Preston J

Solicitors:
Menzies Marshall Law, Winton for the Appellant Inland Revenue Department, Christchurch

Copy to counsel:
A S P Tobeck, Otautau, Barrister for the Appellant

1 Meates v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2024] NZHC 1711.
2 Commissioner of Inland Revenue v New Orleans Hotel (2011) Ltd [2018] NZHC 971.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the High Court was brought by Mark Joseph William Meates against the Commissioner of Inland Revenue. Meates had previously lost a case in the District Court where his statement of defence in tax debt proceedings was struck out, and judgment was entered in favour of the Commissioner. The appeal sought to challenge this decision, but the High Court dismissed the appeal on 26 June 2024. The Commissioner then sought costs from Meates, and the matter was heard on the papers.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the costs sought by the Commissioner were appropriate given the circumstances of the case. The Commissioner sought actual costs and disbursements, which amounted to $3,469.27. Meates did not file a memorandum in response to the Commissioner's claim for costs, while the Commissioner submitted a memorandum seeking the lower amount of actual costs. This was appropriate, considering the Commissioner's counsel was in-house.

In ruling on the matter, the court noted that the Commissioner had filed a memorandum and sought a reasonable amount of costs. Meates did not respond to the costs application, and therefore, the court awarded the Commissioner the costs as claimed. The court also noted that it had indicated an award on a 2B basis if no memoranda were filed within five working days. Given that the Commissioner complied with the direction, the court awarded the Commissioner the lower amount of actual costs and disbursements as set out in the memorandum dated 1 July 2024.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	A S P Tobeck for the Appellant J A Beech for the Respondent
Judgment:	11 July 2024