WK v THE REFUGEE PROTECTION OFFICER, MBIE, AUCKLAND [2018] NZHC 2069
The court awarded costs to the respondent in the sum of $24,945.66 (inclusive of disbursements), accepting the respondent's reduction of the item 30 claim to the 2A allowance and finding the claimed items and disbursements properly allowable and the reduction reasonable.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] NZHC 2069
- Parties
- Applicant: WK; Respondent: The Refugee Protection Officer, MBIE, Auckland
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 14 August 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review Under the Immigration Act 2009 / Costs Stage Following Dismissal of Substantive Judicial Review Application
- Outcome
- Order for costs in favour of the respondent following dismissal of the applicant's judicial review application.
- Legal Topics
- Costs, Judicial Review, Refusal to Consider Repeat Refugee Claim, Costs Quantification (2 A/2 B Scales)
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
WK
Applicant
The Refugee Protection Officer, MBIE, Auckland
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under the Immigration Act 2009 / Costs Stage Following Dismissal of Substantive Judicial Review Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether costs should be awarded to the respondent following dismissal of the judicial review
- 2 Whether the claimed costs were reasonable and should be assessed on a 2B basis or reduced to 2A for specific items (item 30)
- 3 Whether the items and disbursements claimed were properly allowable
Ratio Decidendi
The court awarded costs to the respondent in the sum of $24,945.66 (inclusive of disbursements), accepting the respondent's reduction of the item 30 claim to the 2A allowance and finding the claimed items and disbursements properly allowable and the reduction reasonable.
Court Disposition
Order for costs in favour of the respondent following dismissal of the applicant's judicial review application.
Orders
- Applicant to pay respondent costs and disbursements totalling $24,945.66
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
WK v THE REFUGEE PROTECTION OFFICER, MBIE, AUCKLAND [2018] NZHC 2069 [14 August 2018]NOTE: THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE NAME OR IDENTIFYINGPARTICULARS OF THE APPELLANT AND OF HIS OR HER CLAIM ORSTATUS MUST BE MAINTAINED PURSUANT TO S 151 OF THEIMMIGRATION ACT 2009.IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2017-404-1012[2018] NZHC 2069UNDER the Immigration Act 2009, ss 129-131, s 140IN THE MATTER of an appeal of a decision of the RefugeeStatus branch to decline an application forrefugee statusBETWEEN WKApplicantAND THE REFUGEE PROTECTION OFFICER,MBIE, AUCKLANDRespondentHearing: On the papersAppearances: R Pidgeon for the ApplicantS Jerebine and T Burgess for the RespondentJudgment: 14 August 2018JUDGMENT OF WOODHOUSE J(Costs)This judgment was delivered by me on 14 August 2018 at 4:00 p.m.pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 1985.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarSolicitors / Counsel:Mr R Pidgeon, Barrister, AucklandMr P Pang, Integritas Law Firm, AucklandMs S Jerebine and Ms T Burgess, Crown Law, Wellington[1] WK applied for judicial review of a decision of a refugee and protection officerwho refused to consider what was the fourth claim by WK for recognition as a refugeeand protected person under the Immigration Act 2009. Following a defended hearingI dismissed the application.1[2] The respondent advised that costs would be sought if the application wasdismissed. Directions were made for memoranda to be filed.[3] The respondent sought costs of $26,983 on a 2B basis and disbursements of$192.66.[4] A memorandum in response from Mr Pidgeon, on behalf of WK, was filed. MrPidgeon advised that no issue was taken with the respondent's quantification otherthan a claim for $5,575 for item 30 in schedule 3 to the Rules – plaintiff's ordefendant's preparation of briefs or affidavits. The claim was for 2.5 days inaccordance with the schedule. Mr Pidgeon, acknowledging that he had not acted forWK in the substantive proceeding, queried whether 2.5 days was reasonable.[5] The respondent has agreed to reduce the claim to $3,345, which is theallowance on a 2A basis. That is a reasonable and responsible response. The reducedtotal, inclusive of disbursements, is $24,945.66.[6] I am satisfied that the items now claimed are properly claimed and that thereis no reason not to make an award of costs in this case.[7] In consequence, there is an order that the applicant pay the respondent for costsand disbursements a total of $24,945.66._______________________________Woodhouse J1 WK v The Refugee Protection Officer, MBIE, Auckland [2018] NZHC 514.