Minister of Education v Reidy McKenzie Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CIV-2014-419-246 [2015] NZHC 1555

BETWEEN
THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND

REVENUE Plaintiff

AND

IRENE REENITA SHARMA Defendant

Hearing: 21 May 2015

Appearances:

Ms M Brown for plaintiff
(on papers)

Judgment:

6 July 2015

COSTS JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE J P DOOGUE

This judgment was delivered by me on
06.07.15at 4 pm, pursuant to

Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v SHARMA [2015] NZHC 1555 [6 July 2015]

[1] The judgment creditor has provided a submission concerning costs in this proceeding. The judgment debtor has not. I am satisfied that the judgment debtor who was unsuccessful in the proceeding should pay costs on a 2B basis and disbursements. I approve the costs and disbursements set out in the schedule attached to the memorandum by Ms Brown, counsel for the judgment creditor, dated
2 June 2015. There will be judgment accordingly.

J.P. Doogue
Associate Judge

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Minister of Education v Reidy McKenzie Ltd was heard. The plaintiff, the Commissioner of Inland Revenue, sought to recover unpaid taxes from the defendant, Irene Reenita Sharma. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate amount of costs and disbursements to be awarded to the plaintiff following the defendant's unsuccessful defense in the proceedings.

The central legal issue before the court was the determination of the costs and disbursements to be awarded to the plaintiff in light of the defendant's failure to provide any submissions or evidence in response to the plaintiff's claims. The plaintiff argued that the defendant should be liable for the costs of the proceedings on a standard basis, as well as for the disbursements incurred by the plaintiff in pursuing the case.

In reaching its decision, the court noted that the defendant had failed to provide any submissions or evidence in response to the plaintiff's claims, and that the plaintiff had been successful in the proceedings. The court therefore found that it was appropriate to award costs to the plaintiff on a standard basis, as well as for the disbursements incurred by the plaintiff in pursuing the case. The court approved the costs and disbursements set out in the schedule attached to the memorandum by counsel for the plaintiff, dated 2 June 2015.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant should pay the plaintiff the costs of the proceedings on a standard basis, as well as the disbursements incurred by the plaintiff. The court also noted that the defendant had not provided any submissions or evidence in response to the plaintiff's claims, and that the plaintiff had been successful in the proceedings. The court therefore found that it was appropriate to award costs to the plaintiff in accordance with the approved schedule.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	21 May 2015
Appearances:	Ms M Brown for plaintiff (on papers)
Judgment:	6 July 2015