M (CA587/2011) V MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION COA CA587/2011

M (CA587/2011) V MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION COA CA587/2011 8 November 2011NOTE: EXTANT HIGH COURT ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OFNAMES OR OTHER PARTICULARS IDENTIFYING THE APPELLANT.IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA587/2011[2011] NZCA 565BETWEEN M (CA587/2011)AppellantAND MINISTER OF IMMIGRATIONRespondentCounsel: Appellant in PersonM G Coleman and R Hoare for RespondentJudgment: 8 November 2011 at 2:00 PMJUDGMENT OF CHAMBERS JThe application for review of the Acting Registrar's decision as to security forcosts is dismissed. The appellant must pay security of costs of $2,780 in relation to the appeal within 20 working days of the date of this judgment.REASONS[1] The appellant already has two appeals before this Court. Both those appeals relate to his claim for refugee status. He has now appealed against a third High Court judgment. The judgment under appeal in this case is M v Minister of Immigration, delivered on 5 September this year.1 In this case, the appellant's claim relates to the Minister of Immigration's refusal to allow the appellant's wife andchild to visit him in New Zealand. Courtney J struck out the statement of claim as untenable.1 M v Minister of Immigration HC Auckland CIV-2011-404-2913, 5 September 2011.[2] The appellant, on this appeal as on his two earlier appeals, sought to have security for costs dispensed with under r 35(6)(c) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005. The Acting Registrar determined that it was not an appropriate case forwaiver of security. He did however, on the basis of the appellant's financialcircumstances, rule that a reduced amount of security was appropriate. He fixed security at $2,780, half the normal amount.[3] The appellant has sought a review of the Acting Registrar's decision unders 61A(3) of the Judicature Act 1908.[4] The Registrar in reaching his view took into account Arnold J's judgment inM v Refugee Status Appeals Authority.2 Arnold J was determining, on a review application just like the present, what security for costs the present appellant should pay on his two earlier appeals. Arnold J, in a full judgment, set out the general principles applicable in determining applications to dispense with security for costs. He then considered the appellant's prospects of success on those appeals and the extent to which the public interest was engaged. His Honour concluded that the Acting Registrar had in that case made the right decision in ordering the present appellant to pay $2,780 security in relation to each appeal.[5] The Registrar concluded in the present case that Arnold J's reasoning wasdirectly appropriate to this application to dispense with security. He was right to do so. Although this appeal raises somewhat different considerations from the first two appeals, the chances of success are slight. Arnold J considered that the appeals hewas considering had "little prospect of success".3 Exactly the same comment could be made with respect to this appeal. I say no more about likelihood of success, except to say that the appellant should study closely what Ms Coleman has submitted in her memorandum of 21 October. The grounds upon which the Minister contendsthis appeal "has no prospect of success", as set out at paragraphs [5]–[7] of that memorandum, seem compelling.2 M v Refugee Status Appeals Authority [2011] NZCA 327.3 At [12].[6] The appeal raises no particular matter of public interest. The only factor justifying anything other than a normal amount of security was the appellant'sfinancial position. The Registrar has appropriately taken that into account by reducing the amount of security by half.[7] I decline the application for review of the Registrar's decision as to securityfor costs.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent