JIANG v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2020] NZHC 1974
Because the parties had agreed costs should be categorised as 2B, the applicants did not oppose the application, and the sum claimed corresponded to scale costs which are GST neutral, the respondent was entitled to judgment for costs on a 2B basis in the sum of $17,686.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] NZHC 1974
- Parties
- Applicant: Guangbo Jiang; Applicant: Jinhong Wan; Applicant: Miaojin Jiang; Applicant: Lai Jiang; Respondent: Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 7 August 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Costs Application (post Judgment)
- Outcome
- Costs awarded to respondent
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Costs Assessment, Scale Costs, GST Treatment, High Court Rules
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Guangbo Jiang
Applicant
Jinhong Wan
Applicant
Miaojin Jiang
Applicant
Lai Jiang
Applicant
Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Costs Application (post Judgment)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent was entitled to costs following dismissal of the judicial review
- 2 Appropriate categorisation of costs (2B)
- 3 Whether the quantum sought was reasonable and appropriate
Ratio Decidendi
Because the parties had agreed costs should be categorised as 2B, the applicants did not oppose the application, and the sum claimed corresponded to scale costs which are GST neutral, the respondent was entitled to judgment for costs on a 2B basis in the sum of $17,686.
Court Disposition
Costs awarded to respondent
Orders
- Respondent entitled to judgment for costs against the applicants in the sum of $17,686
- Award of scale costs is GST neutral (no GST payable on the scale costs)
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
JIANG v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT[2020] NZHC 1974 [7 August 2020]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2020-404-83[2020] NZHC 1974UNDER The Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016IN THE MATTER of a judicial reviewBETWEEN GUANGBO JIANGFirst ApplicantJINHONG WANSecond ApplicantMIAOJIN JIANGThird ApplicantLAI JIANGFourth ApplicantAND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRYOF BUSINESS, INNOVATION ANDEMPLOYMENTRespondentHearing: On the Papers at AucklandAppearances: J R Moss for the ApplicantsB C L Charmley and M Djurich for the RespondentJudgment: 7 August 2020JUDGMENT OF POWELL J[Costs]This judgment was delivered by me on 7 August 2020 at 3.30 pm pursuant toR 11.5 of the High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarDate:[1] In my judgment of 25 June 2020, I found in favour of the respondent, theChief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, anddeclined the application for judicial review.1 In my decision I set out a timetable inthe event the respondent sought costs.[2] The respondent has now applied for costs against the applicants on a 2B basisin the total sum of $17,686.2 The applicants have not taken any steps to oppose thecosts sought.[3] As the respondent has noted the parties had previously agreed that costs shouldbe appropriately categorised as 2B. On this basis, and having checked the amountssought, I am satisfied that the costs claimed are both reasonable and appropriate.Accordingly, the respondent is entitled to judgment for costs against the applicants inthe sum of $17,686._______________________________Powell J1 Jiang v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business [2020] NZHC 1439.2 The respondent sought costs of $17,686 inclusive of GST, however, utilising the schedule providedby the respondent this sum is in fact simply the relevant scale costs calculated in accordance withsch 3 of the High Court Rules 2016, and an award of scale costs is GST neutral. See New ZealandVenue and Event Management Ltd v Worldwide NZ LLC [2016] NZCA 282, (2016) 23 PRNZ 260at [7]-[10].