AD v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2020] NZHC 2295
The Court dismissed the applicant's application for further time and held that s186(3)(a) of the Immigration Act 2009 prevented judicial review of the September 2019 temporary entry class visa refusal; consequently the respondent, as the successful party, was entitled to costs which were assessed and awarded at...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] NZHC 2295
- Parties
- Applicant: AD; Respondent: Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 4 September 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review Under the Immigration Act 2009 / Costs Determination Following Preliminary Judgment
- Outcome
- Applicant's extension application dismissed and judicial review of the September 2019 decision barred by statute; respondent awarded costs.
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Costs, Statutory Bar S186(3)(a), Visa Waiver Suspension, Temporary Entry Class Visa Refusal
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
AD
Applicant
Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under the Immigration Act 2009 / Costs Determination Following Preliminary Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant should be granted further time to commence proceedings challenging the July 2017 suspension of visa waiver status
- 2 Whether s186(3)(a) of the Immigration Act 2009 precluded judicial review of the September 2019 decision refusing a temporary entry class visa
- 3 Whether the respondent was entitled to costs and the appropriate amount
Ratio Decidendi
The Court dismissed the applicant's application for further time and held that s186(3)(a) of the Immigration Act 2009 prevented judicial review of the September 2019 temporary entry class visa refusal; consequently the respondent, as the successful party, was entitled to costs which were assessed and awarded at $5,435.71.
Court Disposition
Applicant's extension application dismissed and judicial review of the September 2019 decision barred by statute; respondent awarded costs.
Orders
- Applicant to pay respondent costs and disbursements in the sum of $5,435.71.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
AD v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2020]NZHC 2295 [4 September 2020]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDWELLINGTON REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHECIV-2019-485-522[2020] NZHC 2295UNDER THE Immigration Act 2009, s 247IN THE MATTER OF an application for judicial review of adecision of New Zealand ImmigrationBETWEEN ADApplicantAND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRYOF BUSINESS, INNOVATION ANDEMPLOYMENTRespondentHearing: On the papersCounsel: J H Cottrell for ApplicantS P Connolly and E J Cameron for RespondentJudgment: 4 September 2020JUDGMENT OF CLARK J[1] In a judgment delivered 15 May 2020 I determined two preliminary issuesarising from AD's application to judicially review two immigration decisions adverseto his interests:1(a) AD's application for further time in which to commence his proceedingchallenging a decision made in July 2017 to suspend his visa waiverstatus, was dismissed.(b) AD was prevented by s 186(3)(a) of the Immigration Act 2009 from1 AD v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2020] NZHC 1010.judicially reviewing a decision made in September 2019 to decline hisapplication for a temporary entry class visa.[2] As the respondent accurately observes in its memorandum seeking costs, thejudgment was silent as to costs.[3] The respondent seeks scale costs on a 1B basis. On 10 June 2020 therespondent shared with the applicant the respondent's quantification of costs. Theapplicant has not responded.[4] As the successful party the respondent is entitled to costs and disbursements.The respondent's calculation of its costs and relevant disbursements is in accordancewith its entitlement under the High Court Rules 2016.[5] Accordingly, the applicant must pay to the respondent costs in the sum of$5,435.71._____________________________Karen Clark JSolicitors:Cottrell Law Ltd, Wellington for ApplicantCrown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent