FAZLY v MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2017] NZHC 1146
Proceedings were of a straightforward nature warranting costs on a 1B basis; accordingly the High Court confirmed costs to the Crown on a 1B basis and ordered payment of disbursements of $1,278.76.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] NZHC 1146
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Mohammed Taslim Fazly; Defendant: Minister of Immigration
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 30 May 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Immigration Judicial Review / Costs Judgment (post Judgment)
- Outcome
- Costs awarded to Defendant on a 1B basis; disbursements awarded to Defendant.
- Legal Topics
- Costs Assessment, Disbursements, Costs Categories (1 B V 2 B), Appeal of Costs
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mohammed Taslim Fazly
Plaintiff
Minister of Immigration
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Immigration Judicial Review / Costs Judgment (post Judgment)
Legal Issues
- 1 Appropriate costs category (1B v 2B)
- 2 Whether the High Court should revisit its earlier costs assessment
- 3 Entitlement to disbursements
Ratio Decidendi
Proceedings were of a straightforward nature warranting costs on a 1B basis; accordingly the High Court confirmed costs to the Crown on a 1B basis and ordered payment of disbursements of $1,278.76.
Court Disposition
Costs awarded to Defendant on a 1B basis; disbursements awarded to Defendant.
Orders
- Costs awarded to the Crown on a 1B basis.
- Crown to be paid disbursements amounting to $1,278.76.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
FAZLY v MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2017] NZHC 1146 [30 May 2017]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYCIV-2016-404-001631[2017] NZHC 1146BETWEEN MOHAMMED TASLIM FAZLYPlaintiffAND MINISTER OF IMMIGRATIONDefendantHearing: On the papersCounsel: M S S Khan for ApplicantM J R Conway for RespondentJudgment: 30 May 2017JUDGMENT No 2 OF PALMER J (COSTS)This judgment is delivered by me on 30 May 2017 at 12.30 pmpursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules......................................................Registrar / Deputy RegistrarSolicitors/Counsel:Singhs Solicitors, AucklandCrown Law, Wellington[1] On 7 February 2017 I issued judgment in Fazly v Minister of Immigration.1I awarded costs to the Crown on a 1B basis.2[2] Ms Conway, for the Crown, submits costs should be awarded on a 2B basis, which is what the parties had previously categorised it as, by joint memorandum. The Crown also seeks disbursements.[3] Mr Singh, for Mr Fazly, submits the Crown should have appealed the judgment if it was not satisfied with the costs award. It did not. I note, though, that Mr Fazly effectively did, unsuccessfully.3 The Court of Appeal awarded costs on the equivalent of a 2A basis with disbursements.4 The Court of Appeal has no equivalent to category 1.[4] For the purposes of costs in the High Court, category 1 proceedings are "of astraightforward nature able to be conducted by counsel considered junior in the HighCourt". Category 2 proceedings are "of average complexity requiring counsel ofskill and experience considered average in the High Court".[5] Even if I have jurisdiction to revisit the judgment I would not change my assessment of these proceedings as being of a straightforward nature. I confirm the award of costs on a 1B basis. But I do direct the payment of the usual disbursements sought by the Crown, amounting to $1,278.76...................................................................Palmer J1 Fazly v Minister of Immigration [2017] NZHC 89. I regret that Mr Fazly's name was inaccurately spelt as "Fazley" in that judgment.2 At [30].3 Fazly v Minister of Immigration [2017] NZCA 218.4 At [15].