NAIR v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR [2013] NZHC 1741
The respondent, having succeeded and facing no substantive opposition, was entitled to costs; the court exercised its discretion to award scale costs as sought (2B generally, 2A for authorities) and allowed the claimed disbursements, awarding $15,124 and $1,043.31 respectively.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] NZHC 1741
- Parties
- Applicant: Vana Nair; Respondent: The Chief Executive of the Department of Labour
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 10 July 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review Under the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 and the Immigration Act 2009 / Costs Application Following Substantive Judgment
- Outcome
- Respondent successful; costs and disbursements awarded to respondent
- Legal Topics
- Costs, Scale Costs, Disbursements, Procedural Timeliness
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Vana Nair
Applicant
The Chief Executive of the Department of Labour
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 and the Immigration Act 2009 / Costs Application Following Substantive Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the successful respondent was entitled to costs
- 2 Appropriate scale for costs (2A v 2B)
- 3 Entitlement to disbursements and quantum
Ratio Decidendi
The respondent, having succeeded and facing no substantive opposition, was entitled to costs; the court exercised its discretion to award scale costs as sought (2B generally, 2A for authorities) and allowed the claimed disbursements, awarding $15,124 and $1,043.31 respectively.
Court Disposition
Respondent successful; costs and disbursements awarded to respondent
Orders
- Applicant to pay respondent costs in the sum of $15,124
- Applicant to pay respondent disbursements in the sum of $1,043.31 (inclusive of GST)
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
NAIR v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR [2013] NZHC 1741 [10 July 2013]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDNAPIER REGISTRYCIV-2012-441-364[2013] NZHC 1741UNDER the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 andthe Immigration Act 2009IN THE MATTER OF an application for reviewBETWEEN VANA NAIRApplicantAND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THEDEPARTMENT OF LABOURRespondentHearing: (on the papers)Counsel: P Ross for the ApplicantS McKenzie for the RespondentJudgment: 10 July 2013JUDGMENT OF WOODHOUSE J (Costs)This judgment was delivered by me on 10 July 2013 at 3:30 p.m. pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 1985.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarCounsel: Mr P Ross, Barrister, Napier Ms S McKenzie, Crown Law, Wellington Instructing Solicitors: Ms Z Tope, Tope Law Ltd, Solicitor, Napier[1] In the substantive judgment leave was reserved for the successful respondent to apply for costs.1[2] An application for costs by the respondent was filed on 7 March 2013. There has been no response for the applicant save for advice from Mr Ross, counsel for the applicant, that he was without instructions, would seek instructions from his instructing solicitors, but was doubtful that anything would be filed in response. This was advice by email to the Registrar on 26 June 2013.[3] Given the fact that the application for the respondent was filed over four months ago, and the advice from Mr Ross, I am satisfied that a decision should nowbe made on the respondent's application. In any event, the application is not contentious.[4] The respondent, having succeeded, is entitled to costs. Costs are sought on a 2B basis apart from costs for preparation of the list of authorities in respect of which costs are sought on a 2A basis.[5] I am satisfied that the respondent is entitled to the scale costs sought together with the disbursements itemised in the schedule to the respondent's memorandum of5 March 2013.[6] Accordingly, there is an order that the applicant pay the respondent costs in a sum of $15,124 and disbursements in a sum of $1,043.31 (with the disbursementsbeing inclusive of GST).________________________________Woodhouse J1 Nair v The Chief Executive of the Department of Labour [2013] NZHC 358.