IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
CIV-2013-404-003520 [2014] NZHC 2350
UNDER the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 and
the Immigration Act 2009
IN THE MATTER
of an application for leave to bring judicial review proceedings
BETWEEN
K Plaintiff
AND
IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL
First Defendant
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT Second Defendant
Hearing: On the papers Judgment:
25 September 2014
JUDGMENT OF ASHER J (Costs)
This judgment was delivered by me on Thursday, 25 September 2014 at 3.00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland.
K v IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2014] NZHC 2350 [25 September 2014]
[1] On 1 August 2014 I dismissed K’s application for leave to judicially review a decision of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal. I considered that there was no point of public or general importance and that the plaintiff’s case was hopeless. The issues raised were either points of law or meritless and unreasoned factual assertions.1
[2] The second defendant in a memorandum dated 5 August 2014 seeks costs. The plaintiff has opposed on the basis that he was not legally represented, that awarding costs would subject him to more undue financial hardship, and he asks that the issue of costs be suspended pending consideration of his appeal by the Court of Appeal.
[3] I am not persuaded by these arguments which many unsuccessful litigants could raise. A plaintiff who brings an action and fails is in the ordinary course of events obliged to pay costs, and a lack of legal representation, or a shortage of funds does not displace that. An appeal does not operate as a stay.
[4] I therefore award the second defendant costs and disbursements as set out in the memorandum of 5 August 2014.
……………………………..
Asher J
1 K v Immigration and Protection Tribunal [2014] NZHC 1800 at [22].
- AGLC
- K v Immigration and Protection Tribunal [2014] NZHC 2350
- Case
- [2014] NZHC 2350
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff's application for leave to bring judicial review proceedings should be granted. In reaching its decision, the Court considered whether there was a point of public or general importance and whether the plaintiff's case was hopeless. The Court found that the issues raised were either points of law or meritless and unreasoned factual assertions, and therefore there was no point of public or general importance. The Court also found that the plaintiff's case was hopeless, as it was either without merit or unreasoned.
In reaching its decision, the Court considered the arguments put forward by the plaintiff. The plaintiff argued that he was not legally represented, that awarding costs would subject him to more undue financial hardship, and that the issue of costs should be suspended pending consideration of his appeal by the Court of Appeal. The Court was not persuaded by these arguments, finding that a plaintiff who brings an action and fails is in the ordinary course of events obliged to pay costs, and a lack of legal representation, or a shortage of funds does not displace that. The Court also found that an appeal does not operate as a stay.
The Court therefore awarded costs and disbursements to the second defendant, as set out in the memorandum of 5 August 2014. The plaintiff's appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed.
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.