PRASAD V THE DEPORTATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2007-404-008059

PRASAD V THE DEPORTATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2007-404-008059 6 March 2008IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2007-404-008059UNDER Judicature Amendment Act 1972 IN THE MATTER OF a decision of the Deportation Review Tribunal BETWEEN RESHMA RANJANI DEVI PRASAD Applicant AND THE DEPORTATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL First Respondent AND HER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY- GENERAL Second Respondent Hearing: By memoranda Appearances: Mr B Cunningham for Applicant No appearance for first respondent (abides decision of Court) Ms A Longdill for second respondent Judgment: 6 March 2008 at 10 amJUDGMENT OF LANG J [as to Costs]This judgment was delivered by me on 6 March 2008 at 10 am, pursuant to Rule 540(4) of the High Court Rules.Registrar/Deputy Registrar DateSolicitors: Mr B M Cunningham, Auckland Crown Solicitor, Auckland[1] On 19 February 2008 I dismissed the applicant's application for interim relief. I have now received memoranda from counsel in relation to the issue of costs. [2] The Attorney-General seeks an award of costs and disbursements in his favour, with costs to be calculated on a category 2B basis. [3] Counsel for the applicant contends that costs should be reserved pending the hearing of the substantive proceeding. [4] The application in question was an application for interim relief. It was therefore an interlocutory application in terms of the High Court Rules notwithstanding the fact that it was not filed under s 237. There was, in fact, no formal application for interim relief. Essentially, therefore, it must be treated as an oral application under r 254. [5] Rule 48E of the High Court Rules provides as follows:[48E Costs in interlocutory applications(1) Unless there are special reasons to the contrary, costs on an opposed interlocutory application— (a) Must be fixed in accordance with these rules when the application is determined; and (b) Become payable when they are fixed. (2) Despite subclause (1), the Court may reverse, discharge, or vary an order for costs on an interlocutory application if satisfied subsequently that the original order should not have been made. [6] The Court is therefore required under r 48E to fix costs at the time that any interlocutory application is determined. It is only exempted from that requirement in circumstances where there are "special reasons to the contrary". [7] No special reasons have been given in the present case to support the course of action advocated by the applicant.[8] On that basis the Attorney-General is entitled to an award of costs on a category 2B basis, together with disbursements as fixed by the Registrar. [9] I note that in her memorandum dated 20 February 2008 counsel for the Attorney-General included a schedule that included an allowance of two days for the preparation of the defence. That item, however, is a cost in relation to the substantive proceeding and not in relation to the interlocutory application. That item is therefore not to form part of the award of costs at this stage. Lang J