Property Ventures Ltd (in Rec) v Commissioner of Inland Revenue

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA537/2010
[2012] NZCA 84

BETWEEN PROPERTY VENTURES LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP)
Appellant

AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
Respondent

CA795/2010

AND BETWEEN ATLAS FOOD AND BEVERAGE LIMITED
Appellant

AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
Respondent

Court: Randerson, Stevens and White JJ

Counsel: A J Forbes QC for Appellants
P H Courtney and A Goosen for Respondent

Judgment: 9 March 2012 at 11.30 a.m.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appellant in each of these appeals must pay to the respondent costs as for a standard appeal on a band A basis for all steps up to and including preparation for the appeals, together with disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.

___________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Randerson J)

These two appeals were abandoned at the last moment at a point where the respondent had filed full submissions and had completed most of the preparation for the appeals. The respondent seeks costs against the appellant in each case and requests the Court to order an uplift of costs to take account of breaches by the appellants of timetable directions and the late abandonment of the appeals.
The appellants accept the costs allowed to the respondent should cover the normal preparation and steps taken by the respondent including the preparation and filing of submissions and attendance at the telephone conference on 3 February 2012. However, any increased costs are resisted.
We are not persuaded that there is any justification for an increased costs award since the appellants intended proceeding with the appeals and were handicapped, in part, by issues associated with the Christchurch earthquakes. However, we see no reason not to allow costs to the respondent (one set for each appeal) for all steps taken by the respondent up to and including preparation for hearing.
Accordingly, the appellant in each of these appeals must pay to the respondent costs as for a standard appeal on a band A basis for all steps up to and including preparation for the appeals, together with disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.

Solicitors:
Canterbury Legal Services Limited, Christchurch for Appellants
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Property Ventures Ltd (in Rec) v Commissioner of Inland Revenue, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand dealt with two appeals that were abruptly abandoned by the appellants at a stage where the respondent had already filed full submissions and was well-prepared for the appeals. The appellants in the two cases were Property Ventures Limited (in receivership) and Atlas Food and Beverage Limited, and they were appealing against the Commissioner of Inland Revenue. The central issue before the court was whether the respondent was entitled to costs beyond the standard amount for a band A appeal, given that the appellants had abandoned the appeals at a late stage and had breached timetable directions.

The court examined whether the respondent should be awarded additional costs due to the late abandonment and procedural breaches by the appellants. While the appellants admitted that the respondent was entitled to costs covering normal preparation and steps taken, including the preparation and filing of submissions, they contested any increased costs. The court acknowledged that the appellants had intended to proceed with the appeals but were hindered by issues related to the Christchurch earthquakes. Despite this, the court found no justification for an uplift in costs, but it did rule that the respondent was entitled to standard appeal costs for all steps taken up to and including preparation for the appeals.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal ordered that the appellant in each case must pay the respondent costs as for a standard appeal on a band A basis for all steps up to and including preparation for the appeals, along with disbursements as fixed by the Registrar. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural timetables and the consequences of abandoning appeals at an advanced stage of preparation.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established