SINGH v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION & EMPLOYMENT [2014] NZHC 268

SINGH v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION & EMPLOYMENT [2014] NZHC 268 [25 February 2014]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYCIV 2013-404-003105[2014] NZHC 268BETWEEN MANJINDER SINGHPlaintiffAND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THEMINISTRY OF BUSINESS,INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENTDefendantHearing: On the papers.Counsel: F C Deliu for PlaintiffR E Savage for DefendantJudgment: 25 February 2014 at 12:00pmCOSTS JUDGMENT OF GILBERT J[1] Mr Singh applied in this proceeding for judicial review in respect of two letters written by the Ministry in the course of an investigation into whether he had obtained a residence visa by concealing relevant information. In a judgment delivered on 29 November 20131 I determined the preliminary question as to whether these letters involved the exercise of a statutory power and were therefore amenable to review. I found that they did not and accordingly struck out the proceeding. This judgment deals with the issue of costs.[2] There is no dispute that the defendant is entitled to costs calculated on a 2B basis. The only issue is whether these costs should include the costs of filing the statement of defence and the filing fee payable for this. Mr Deliu argues that the application for determination of the preliminary issue was analogous to a strike-out application which is traditionally decided before a statement of defence is filed. He submits that no statement of defence was required and costs should not be allowed for this step because it was unnecessary.[3] The general principle set out in r 14.2 of the High Court Rules is that the successful party is entitled to costs for each step reasonably required in relation to a proceeding or interlocutory application. Rule 14.7 provides that the Court may refuse to make an order for costs and may reduce the costs otherwise payable if a party has taken an unnecessary step in the proceeding.[4] I do not accept Mr Deliu's submission that costs should not be allowed for filing and serving the statement of defence. The defendant was obliged to file a defence if he wished to contest the proceeding. The defence was filed on 15 July 2013. That step was reasonably required. It was not until 24 July 2013 that Andrews J directed the determination of the preliminary issue as to whether the letters were amenable to review.1 Singh v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment [2013] NZHC 3181.[5] It follows that the defendant is entitled to costs assessed on a 2B basis calculated in accordance with the memorandum filed on behalf of the defendant._____________________M A Gilbert J