White v Commissioner of Inland Revenue

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-1334

[2023] NZHC 3086

UNDER the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016

IN THE MATTER

of an application for judicial review

BETWEEN

ANTHONY JAMES WHITE

Applicant

AND

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

S M Kilian and E Iliev for Applicant M Deligiannis for Respondent

Judgment:

2 November 2023

COSTS JUDGMENT OF PETERS J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Peters on 2 November 2023 at 9 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: ...................................

Solicitors: Kilian & Associates, Auckland
Te Tari Ture o te Karauna | Crown Law, Wellington

WHITE v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2023] NZHC 3086 [2 November 2023]

[1]I delivered judgment in this matter on 29 August 2023.1

[2] The Commissioner, as the successful party, is entitled to costs on a 2B basis and all usual disbursements.

[3] There is no opposition to costs. Rather, counsel for the applicant has advised that the applicant has been adjudicated bankrupt.

[4] I award costs and disbursements to the Commissioner in the sum identified in the schedule to counsel’s memorandum as to costs of 25 September 2023, being
$18,925.96.

Peters J

1 White v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2023] NZHC 2368.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Anthony James White applied for judicial review against the Commissioner of Inland Revenue. The application followed a dispute over tax assessments made against Mr White by the Commissioner. The court was asked to examine whether the assessments were lawful and if the Commissioner had acted within the bounds of his authority.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Commissioner had correctly applied the relevant tax laws in making the assessments, and if the assessments were justified based on the evidence presented. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the Commissioner had acted in a manner that was procedurally fair and reasonable.

Justice Peters, in delivering the judgment, considered the arguments presented by both parties and the relevant statutory and case law. The court found that the Commissioner had acted lawfully and within his authority in making the tax assessments. The court held that the assessments were justified based on the evidence provided and that the Commissioner had followed proper procedures. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed, and the Commissioner was deemed to be the successful party.

In light of the outcome, the Commissioner, as the successful party, was awarded costs on a standard basis, along with all usual disbursements. The applicant’s counsel informed the court that there was no opposition to the costs, and that the applicant had been adjudicated bankrupt. Justice Peters awarded the Commissioner costs and disbursements amounting to $18,925.96, as detailed in the schedule to the memorandum of costs provided by the Commissioner's counsel.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

UNDER	the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016
IN THE MATTER	of an application for judicial review
BETWEEN	ANTHONY JAMES WHITE Applicant
AND	THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	S M Kilian and E Iliev for Applicant M Deligiannis for Respondent
Judgment:	2 November 2023