K v IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2014] NZHC 582

K v IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2014] NZHC 582

The application for security for costs was declined because making the order would effectively determine the proceedings at the leave stage, whereas the leave application would be brief (one hour) and the necessary documentation was already before the Court; security can be revisited if leave to review is granted,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] NZHC 582
Parties
Plaintiff: K; First Defendant: Immigration and Protection Tribunal; Second Defendant: The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
26 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Tribunal Decision / Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (leave Stage)
Outcome
Application for security for costs declined; timetable set for leave application and one-hour fixture to be allocated.
Legal Topics
Protected Person Status, Security for Costs, Leave Under S249(1 B), S249(1 C) Criteria
Immigration Law Administrative Law Refugee Law Protected Person Status Security for Costs Leave Under S249(1 B) S249(1 C) Criteria

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K

Plaintiff

Immigration and Protection Tribunal

First Defendant

The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Tribunal Decision / Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (leave Stage)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave is required under s249(1B) to review the Tribunal decision
  2. 2 Whether to order security for costs of $5,000 given applicant's litigation history and impecuniosity
  3. 3 Appropriate procedural timetable for the leave application

Ratio Decidendi

The application for security for costs was declined because making the order would effectively determine the proceedings at the leave stage, whereas the leave application would be brief (one hour) and the necessary documentation was already before the Court; security can be revisited if leave to review is granted, and leave is required under s249(1B) of the Immigration Act 2009.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs declined; timetable set for leave application and one-hour fixture to be allocated.

Orders

  • Application for security for costs (sum $5,000) declined (without prejudice to being revisited if leave is granted)
  • Applicant to file submissions by 25 April addressing s249(1C)