JE (INDIA) v THE MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION (costs judgment) [2021] NZHC 3482
The applicant's judicial review was dismissed; the respondent is entitled to costs on the 2B basis because the costs regime applies and none of the exceptions in r 14.7 or other good reasons to deny or reduce costs were established; the pleaded schedule was accepted and the Court awarded $17,686.00 in costs and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] NZHC 3482
- Parties
- Applicant: JE (India); Respondent: The Minister of Immigration
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 16 December 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review Under Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 / Costs Judgment
- Outcome
- Application for judicial review dismissed; costs awarded to respondent.
- Legal Topics
- Costs, Judicial Review, Impecuniosity
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
JE (India)
Applicant
The Minister of Immigration
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 / Costs Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent is entitled to costs following dismissal of the judicial review
- 2 Whether the applicant's claimed impecuniosity and personal circumstances justify refusal or reduction of costs
- 3 Appropriate quantum and basis for costs (2B scale)
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant's judicial review was dismissed; the respondent is entitled to costs on the 2B basis because the costs regime applies and none of the exceptions in r 14.7 or other good reasons to deny or reduce costs were established; the pleaded schedule was accepted and the Court awarded $17,686.00 in costs and $141.82 in disbursements (total $17,827.82).
Court Disposition
Application for judicial review dismissed; costs awarded to respondent.
Orders
- Respondent awarded costs of $17,686.00
- Respondent awarded disbursements of $141.82
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
JE (INDIA) v THE MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION (costs judgment) [2021] NZHC 3482 [16 December 2021]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2021-404-000897[2021] NZHC 3482UNDER Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016IN THE MATTER OF an application for Judicial ReviewBETWEEN JE (INDIA)ApplicantAND THE MINISTER OF IMMIGRATIONRespondentHearing: On the papersCounsel: B Castelino for Applicant I Clarke and E Cameron for RespondentJudgment: 16 December 2021COSTS JUDGMENT OF WYLIE JThis judgment was delivered by Justice WylieOn 16 December 2021 at 10.00 amPursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarDate:Solicitors/counsel:Crown Law Office/K Sheppard, WellingtonCastlefinn Law LtdIntroduction[1] I refer to my judgment dated 15 November 2021. 1 I declined the applicant's judicial review application and held that the respondent – the Minister of Immigration – was entitled to his reasonable costs and disbursements.[2] The Minister has filed a memorandum seeking costs on a 2B basis. The total amount sought is $17,827.82. A schedule of costs, and the basis on which they are claimed, is annexed to the memorandum.[3] An email response has been received from Mr Castelino on behalf of the applicant. He notes that the applicant is impecunious and at the "mercy of well- wishers who may render services pro-bono on humanitarian grounds." He notes that she is divorced, a victim of family violence and that her close family have abandoned her. He says that her well-wishers are not in a position "to dip in" to pay any costs awarded.Analysis[4] The Minister was the successful party and costs generally follow the event. The Court has a discretion in awarding costs, but that discretion is not unfettered. The costs regime set out in the rules must apply unless there is good reason to the contrary. Personal circumstances, such as financial hardship, do not generally justify a refusal of or a reduction in costs.2[5] This is not an exceptional case. The applicant is not legally aided. None of the circumstances set out in r 14.7 apply. The determination of costs should be predictable and expeditious. That requirement would be significantly undermined if parties' financial circumstances were to become a matter of routine inquiry.1 JE (India) v The Minister of Immigration [2021] NZHC 3073.2 JE (India) v Immigration and Protection Tribunal [2021] NZHC 774 at [5]; NM (Fiji) v The Minister of Immigration [2020] NZHC 2729 at [8]; BR (Bangladesh) v Chief Executive, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2018] NZHC 902 at (6]; HA v Refugee and Protection Officer [2018] NZHC 1011 at [15]-[16].[6] I have considered the schedule filed by the Minister. As far as I can see, it accurately reflects steps taken and has been correctly calculated. There is no challenge to the schedule by the applicant. Accordingly, I award costs of $17,686.00 to the Minister, together with disbursements of $141.82 – making a total award of $17,827.82.________________________________Wylie J