Jiang v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

Case [2020] NZHC 1974


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2020-404-83

[2020] NZHC 1974

UNDER The Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016

IN THE MATTER

of a judicial review

BETWEEN

GUANGBO JIANG

First Applicant

JINHONG WAN
Second Applicant

MIAOJIN JIANG
Third Applicant

LAI JIANG
Fourth Applicant

AND

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND

EMPLOYMENT

Respondent

Hearing: On the Papers at Auckland

Appearances:

J R Moss for the Applicants

B C L Charmley and M Djurich for the Respondent

Judgment:

7 August 2020


JUDGMENT OF POWELL J

[Costs]


This judgment was delivered by me on 7 August 2020 at 3.30 pm pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

JIANG v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2020] NZHC 1974 [7 August 2020]

[1]    In my judgment of 25 June 2020, I found in favour of the respondent, the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and declined the application for judicial review.1 In my decision I set out a timetable in the event the respondent sought costs.

[2]    The respondent has now applied for costs against the applicants on a 2B basis in the total sum of $17,686.2 The applicants have not taken any steps to oppose the costs sought.

[3]    As the respondent has noted the parties had previously agreed that costs should be appropriately categorised as 2B. On this basis, and having checked the amounts sought, I am satisfied that the costs claimed are both reasonable and appropriate. Accordingly, the respondent is entitled to judgment for costs against the applicants in the sum of $17,686.


Powell J


1      Jiang v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business [2020] NZHC 1439.

2      The respondent sought costs of $17,686 inclusive of GST, however, utilising the schedule provided by the respondent this sum is in fact simply the relevant scale costs calculated in accordance with sch 3 of the High Court Rules 2016, and an award of scale costs is GST neutral. See New Zealand Venue and Event Management Ltd v Worldwide NZ LLC [2016] NZCA 282, (2016) 23 PRNZ 260 at [7]-[10].

Details
AGLC
Jiang v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2020] NZHC 1974
Case
[2020] NZHC 1974
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Jiang v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, the applicants, Guangbo Jiang, Jinhong Wan, Miaojin Jiang, and Lai Jiang, sought judicial review against the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. The applicants contested the respondent's decisions related to their visa applications and subsequent visa cancellations. The case was heard and decided on the papers by Justice Powell of the High Court of New Zealand at Auckland.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicants were entitled to a judicial review of the respondent's decisions regarding their visa applications and cancellations. The court had to determine if there were any errors in law or procedural unfairness that warranted setting aside the respondent's decisions. Additionally, the court needed to address the respondent's application for costs against the applicants, considering the agreed-upon basis for categorising the costs.

Justice Powell found in favour of the respondent, declining the application for judicial review. The court held that the respondent's decisions were not subject to judicial review due to the lack of any jurisdictional error or procedural unfairness. In relation to the costs, the court noted that the parties had previously agreed that the costs should be appropriately categorised as 2B. Having checked the amounts sought, Justice Powell was satisfied that the costs claimed were both reasonable and appropriate. Consequently, the respondent was granted judgment for costs against the applicants in the sum of $17,686.

The final orders of the court were that the respondent, the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, was entitled to judgment for costs against the applicants in the sum of $17,686. The applicants' application for judicial review was dismissed, and no further orders were made in relation to the substantive matter.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.