PRAJAPATI v THE IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2020] NZHC 3420
Award costs to the successful respondent on a scale 2B basis, reduce the claimed 0.30 days for a brief case management conference to 0.05 days, and refuse to disallow travel disbursements for Wellington‑based Crown Law counsel as their engagement was reasonable; resulting award $11,711.00 plus disbursements $721.99.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] NZHC 3420
- Parties
- Applicant: KAMUBEN AMRUTBHAI PRAJAPATI; Applicant: VIJAYKUMAR AMRUTLAL PRAJAPATI; Applicant: GEETABEN VIJAYKUMAR PRAJAPATI; First Respondent: THE IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL; Second Respondent: MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 18 December 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review Under Sections 245 and 247 of the Immigration Act 2009 / Costs Judgment
- Outcome
- Costs awarded to Second Respondent
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Costs Assessment, Disbursements, Scale Costs, Travel Expenses
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
KAMUBEN AMRUTBHAI PRAJAPATI
Applicant
VIJAYKUMAR AMRUTLAL PRAJAPATI
Applicant
GEETABEN VIJAYKUMAR PRAJAPATI
Applicant
THE IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL
First Respondent
MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION
Second Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under Sections 245 and 247 of the Immigration Act 2009 / Costs Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent is entitled to costs after dismissal of the judicial review
- 2 Whether the claimed time for appearance at a brief case management conference (0.30 days) should be reduced to 0.05 days
- 3 Whether air and taxi travel costs for Crown Law counsel based in Wellington are reasonable and deductible as disbursements
Ratio Decidendi
Award costs to the successful respondent on a scale 2B basis, reduce the claimed 0.30 days for a brief case management conference to 0.05 days, and refuse to disallow travel disbursements for Wellington‑based Crown Law counsel as their engagement was reasonable; resulting award $11,711.00 plus disbursements $721.99.
Court Disposition
Costs awarded to Second Respondent
Orders
- Order for costs in favour of the Second Respondent in the sum of NZD 11,711.00
- Order for disbursements in the sum of NZD 721.99
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
PRAJAPATI v THE IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2020] NZHC 3420 [18 December2020]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2020-404-000164CIV-2020-404-000165[2020] NZHC 3420UNDER Section 245 of the Immigration Act 2009AND UNDER Section 247 of the Immigration Act 2009IN THE MATTER OF a decision of the Immigration and ProtectionTribunal, being [2019] NZIPT 600557-559dated 29 November 2019BETWEEN KAMUBEN AMRUTBHAI PRAJAPATI,VIJAYKUMAR AMRUTLAL PRAJAPATIAND GEETABEN VIJAYKUMARPRAJAPATIApplicantsAND THE IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTIONTRIBUNALFirst RespondentAND MINISTER OF IMMIGRATIONSecond RespondentHearing: On the papersAppearances: M L Clark for ApplicantsS P Connolly and T Witten-Sage for Second RespondentJudgment: 18 December 2020COSTS JUDGMENT OF PAUL DAVISON JThis judgment was delivered by me on 18 December 2020 at 4:00 pmpursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarSolicitors: Vallant Hooker & Partners, AucklandCrown Law Office, Wellington[1] By my judgment of 23 October 2020, I dismissed the applicant's applicationfor judicial review of the decisions of the first respondent.1[2] I held that the second respondent is entitled to costs and directed the parties tofile memoranda. Apart from two aspects of the calculation the parties are agreed thatscale category 2B costs apply. The respondent has calculated its costs on a scale 2Bbasis including disbursements as $13,030.49. The applicants dispute the claim forcosts step 13, namely 0.30 days for appearance at the second case managementconference before Palmer J on 13 May 2020. The applicants note that the conferenceduration was for 20 minutes and they submit that the cost allowance shouldaccordingly be based on 0.05 days yielding a figure of $119.50 rather than the $717.00claimed by the respondent.[3] I shall make that adjustment. The applicants also say that the respondent hasclaimed taxi fares to and from Auckland Airport and air travel costs for counsel totravel from Wellington to Auckland for the hearing. The applicants say that theproceedings were filed in Auckland and as there is a Crown Law Office in Auckland,counsel from Auckland could have been briefed to appear rather than incurring thecosts for Wellington based counsel to appear.[4] In my view it is not unreasonable for Crown Law Office to engage counselbased in its Wellington office which is its principal office and for counsel familiar withthe matter to appear at the hearing. I accordingly disallow the applicant's submissionthat there should be an adjustment on that account.Decision[5] I make an order for costs in favour of the second respondent in the sum of$11,711.00 together with disbursements of $721.99._____________Paul Davison J1 Prajapati v Immigration & Protection Tribunal [2020] NZHC 2785.