Tasman Insulation New Zealand Limited v Knauf Insulation Limited

[2014] NZHC 2167

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.