New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Protected person status

Legal area

Court

16 Aug 2023

BE (NIGERIA) v REFUGEE AND PROTECTION OFFICER [2023] NZCA 372

Citation

[2023] NZCA 372
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court granted leave to adduce the expert evidence as credible and cogent (though not fresh), granted leave to appeal to the High Court on the question whether the Tribunal erred in its risk assessment and thereby excluded material information, and declined leave to commence judicial review because the matters sought to be raised are appropriately addressed on appeal; the question of whether a single-stage or two-stage assessment applies is a question of law of general importance that ought to go to the High Court.
26 Aug 2022

LN (INDIA) v A REFUGEE AND PROTECTION OFFICER [2022] NZHC 2142

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2142
Court

High Court

The Court refused leave to appeal and leave to bring judicial review because the alleged factual errors were either not made or not material to the Tribunal's outcome, the weight and credibility assessments (including adverse findings about the alleged 2019 abduction and witness evidence) were within the Tribunal's discretion and open on the evidence, interpreter inaccuracies were minor and not shown to be clearly decisive, and the applicant failed to demonstrate a question of law of general or public importance or other reason justifying leave; the interim stay was lifted and costs reserved.
1 Jul 2020

DG (BANGLADESH) v THE REFUGEE PROTECTION OFFICER [2020] NZHC 1528

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1528
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal under s245 was granted because there is a bona fide and serious argument that the Tribunal erred in law by failing to have regard to applicable international conventions (UNCROC and ICCPR) and the principles of family unity and the best interests of the child when assessing whether the husband and child face Convention-based risk; leave to bring judicial review under s249 was refused because the issue can be adequately resolved on appeal.
12 Jun 2020

HG (INDIA) v REFUGEE AND PROTECTION OFFICER [2020] NZHC 1311

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1311
Court

High Court

Applying High Court Rules r 15.23 and the parties' agreement to calculate costs on a 2B basis, the Court awarded costs to the respondents for the amounts sought, or the actual costs expended, whichever was the lesser, and accepted the Crown's undertaking not to enforce a costs award if a subsequent protection claim proved meritorious.
10 Jul 2018

BP (SOUTH AFRICA) v REFUGEE AND PROTECTION OFFICER [2018] NZHC 1679

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1679
Court

High Court

The RPO, as the successful party, was entitled to costs. The claimed costs were reasonable and awarded on a 2B basis except that a disbursement and cost for sealing the costs award was refused because courts generally do not award costs on costs matters.
26 Jul 2016

R M v IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2016] NZHC 1701

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1701
Court

High Court

Costs awarded to the Crown on a 2B basis because the applicants were unsuccessful, the proceedings were essentially in the applicants' private interests, the applicants' reasonable conduct did not justify departing from the usual costs rule, and obiter dicta of potential public interest were not essential to the outcome and did not justify reduction.
25 May 2016

AR (SAMOA) v A REFUGEE AND PROTECTION OFFICER [2016] NZHC 1108

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1108
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal and leave to bring judicial review were refused because the applicants failed to identify seriously arguable questions of law or particularised grounds of review and the facts did not disclose a realistic prospect of establishing a well‑founded fear of persecution arising from customary banishment.
20 Jul 2015

IOANE TEITIOTA v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2015] NZSC 107

Citation

[2015] NZSC 107
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear the application for leave, and admission of the updating evidence was permitted, but on the facts and law presented the questions did not raise an arguable question of law of general or public importance and the applicant did not demonstrate he would face serious harm or state failure in Kiribati; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and no costs awarded.
26 Mar 2014

K v IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2014] NZHC 582

Citation

[2014] NZHC 582
Court

High Court

The application for security for costs was declined because making the order would effectively determine the proceedings at the leave stage, whereas the leave application would be brief (one hour) and the necessary documentation was already before the Court; security can be revisited if leave to review is granted, and leave is required under s249(1B) of the Immigration Act 2009.
26 Feb 2014

BV v THE IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2014] NZHC 283

Citation

[2014] NZAR 415
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the application for judicial review: the IPT's adverse credibility findings as to the applicant's account of the bazaar strike and his alleged conversion to Christianity were open on the evidence, the IPT complied with natural justice and did not apply an incorrect standard of proof, there was no demonstrable bias, and the fresh affidavits were inadmissible on review because they were not before the IPT and would circumvent the statutory scheme.