W v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2014] NZHC 754

W v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2014] NZHC 754

Even assuming jurisdiction to order security for these interlocutory leave applications, the Court will not order security: the rules do not clearly authorize security for pre-commencement interlocutory leave steps, appeal-specific rules constrain such orders where legal aid exists, and the refugee/human rights...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] NZHC 754
Parties
Applicant: W; First Respondent: IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL; Second Respondent: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
10 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal and Leave to Commence Judicial Review / Application for Security for Costs at Leave Stage; Reserved Judgment
Outcome
Application for security for costs refused
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Leave to Appeal, Judicial Review, Refugee Status, Legal Aid, Interlocutory Applications
Immigration Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Security for Costs Leave to Appeal Judicial Review Refugee Status Legal Aid +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

W

Applicant

IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL

First Respondent

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal and Leave to Commence Judicial Review / Application for Security for Costs at Leave Stage; Reserved Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether r 5.45 High Court Rules permits ordering security for costs in relation to applications for leave to appeal or other interlocutory pre-commencement steps
  2. 2 Whether rules governing security on appeal (r 20.13) preclude such orders where legal aid is granted
  3. 3 Whether it is just to order security against impecunious refugee applicants given statutory and international obligations

Ratio Decidendi

Even assuming jurisdiction to order security for these interlocutory leave applications, the Court will not order security: the rules do not clearly authorize security for pre-commencement interlocutory leave steps, appeal-specific rules constrain such orders where legal aid exists, and the refugee/human rights context together with statutory leave filtering make it unjust to require security from impecunious asylum seekers.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs refused

Orders

  • Security for costs application refused