Tasman Insulation New Zealand Limited v Knauf Insulation Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2013-404-004880 [2014] NZHC 2167

BETWEEN
COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Plaintiff

AND

REDCLIFFE FORESTRY VENTURE LIMITED

Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Judgment:

9 September 2014

JUDGMENT OF COURTNEY J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Courtney on 9 September 2014 at 3.00 pm
pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Date……………………….

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v REDCLIFFE FORESTRY VENTURE LTD [2014] NZHC 2167 [9 September 2014]

[1] In my decision 11 August 2014 I refused the defendant’s application to stay the present proceedings and restrain advertising of them.1 I indicated that the plaintiff could file a memorandum on costs, which she has done and to which the defendant has replied.

[2] Although the plaintiff has indicated a view that indemnity costs would be justified, she recognises that because there is very little difference between here actual costs and scale costs on a 2B basis, the preferable course is to simply seek costs on a 2B basis.

[3] There is no ground for objection to that (the plaintiff having provided an amended schedule that recognised one objection raised by the defendant). It therefore make an order for costs on a 2B basis in favour of the plaintiff in accordance with Schedule B attached to counsel’s memorandum of 5 September
2014.

P Courtney J

1 Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Redcliffe Forestry Venture Ltd [2014] NZHC 1877.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Redcliffe Forestry Venture Limited was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry. The Commissioner of Inland Revenue brought the action against Redcliffe Forestry Venture Limited. The dispute centred around the Commissioner’s claim that Redcliffe Forestry Venture Limited was liable for certain taxes and penalties. The Commissioner sought recovery of these amounts along with associated interest and costs. The defendant, Redcliffe Forestry Venture Limited, contested the claims and applied for a stay of proceedings and an injunction to prevent the advertising of the proceedings. The application was dismissed, and the Commissioner was permitted to proceed with filing a memorandum on costs.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Commissioner was entitled to seek indemnity costs or if the costs should be assessed on a standard basis. The Commissioner argued that due to the relatively minor difference between the actual costs incurred and the costs calculated on a standard basis, the appropriate course was to proceed with the standard basis costs. Redcliffe Forestry Venture Limited did not object to this approach, particularly after the Commissioner provided an amended schedule addressing an earlier objection.

Justice Courtney determined that there was no valid reason to oppose the Commissioner's request for costs on a standard basis. The court accepted the Commissioner's proposal and ordered that the costs be assessed accordingly. The order followed the schedule attached to the memorandum filed by counsel on 5 September 2014. The court's decision was made in light of the minor discrepancies between the actual and standard basis costs, ensuring that the proceedings concluded efficiently without undue delay or expense.

The final order of the court was that the costs of the proceeding be assessed on a standard basis in favour of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue. This was in accordance with the schedule provided by the Commissioner and accepted by the defendant. The decision ensured that the matter was resolved promptly, with minimal financial burden on the parties involved.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established