Kaur v Minister of Immigration

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2016-404-001430 [2017] NZHC 1363

IN THE MATTER
of an application for leave to appeal under

s 245 of the Immigration Act 2009

BETWEEN

KULJINDER KAUR First Applicant

PIARA SINGH Second Applicant

HARBANS KAUR Third Applicant

AND

MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION Respondent

Judgment: 21 June 2017

JUDGMENT OF COURTNEY J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Courtney on 21 June 2017 at 12 noon
pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Date……………………….

KAUR & ORS v MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2017] NZHC 1363 [21 June 2017]

[1] In my decision of 16 December 2016 I refused leave for the applicants to appeal the decision of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal dismissing their appeals against liability for deportation.1 The respondent, the Minister of Immigration, seeks costs.

[2] This proceeding was categorised as 2 for the purposes of costs. In written submissions at the time of the substantive hearing the Minister signalled his intention to seek costs on a 2B basis in the event that the application failed. The applicants did not address the issue of costs. The Minister has now requested that a costs order be made. His memorandum addressing this request was forwarded to the applicants’ counsel but she no longer has instructions.

[3] In the circumstances, the Minister should have a costs order. There are to be costs payable on a 2B basis in accordance with the schedule attached to counsel’s memorandum. These total $6,132.50, together with disbursements totalling
$1,012.53.

P Courtney J

1 Kaur v Minister of Immigration [2016] NZHC 3110.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Kaur v Minister of Immigration case involved Kuljinder Kaur, Piara Singh, and Harbans Kaur, who sought leave to appeal against their deportation, which had been ruled by the Immigration and Protection Tribunal. The Minister of Immigration, acting as the respondent, opposed the applicants' appeal and sought costs. The applicants' application for leave to appeal was dismissed in a previous decision dated 16 December 2016. The applicants' counsel did not address the issue of costs during the substantive hearing, and the applicants' counsel now lacks instructions. The Minister's request for a costs order was supported by a memorandum outlining the basis and amount of the costs.

The court was required to decide whether the Minister should be granted costs and, if so, on what basis. The court also had to determine the appropriate amount of costs and disbursements. The Minister sought costs on a 2B basis, which allows for costs to be awarded when a party has successfully defended a claim that was not frivolous or vexatious. Given that the applicants' application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the applicants did not contest the costs, the court considered it appropriate to award costs to the Minister.

The court found that the Minister should be granted costs on a 2B basis as the applicants' appeal was not frivolous or vexatious. The court noted that the applicants did not address the issue of costs, and their counsel now lacks instructions. The total costs and disbursements were $6,132.50 and $1,012.53, respectively, as outlined in the Minister's memorandum. The court ordered that the Minister be granted costs on a 2B basis, with the total costs and disbursements to be paid by the applicants.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established