AR v Immigration and Protection Tribunal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2015-404-003142

[2018] NZHC 923

UNDER s 249B of the Immigration Act 2009 and the Judicature Amendment Act 1972

IN THE MATTER

of an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal

BETWEEN

AR
Applicant

AND

IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL

First Respondent

REFUGEE AND PROTECTION OFFICER

Second Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Judgment:

3 May 2018

COSTS JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Thursday, 3 May 2018 at 11 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland. Copy to: Applicant

AR v IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2018] NZHC 923 [3 May 2018]

[1] On 4 December 2017, I dismissed AR’s application for leave to appeal my earlier judgment of 24 August 2017.1 On 13 December 2017, the Crown sought (2B) costs of $5,746.50 in relation to that dismissal.2

[2] AR has done nothing in relation to the application. On 26 March 2018, the case officer reminded AR his response was due in January 2018. AR told the case officer he would “speak to his lawyer” and “file a reply next month”. AR did not have a lawyer at any stage of the proceedings; the reference may well be to his McKenzie friend. In any event, April came. And went. I remain without submissions from AR on costs.

[3] The Crown was successful in resisting the application for leave to appeal. So, it is presumptively entitled to costs. Nothing exists to displace that presumption.
The mere fact AR sought refugee status is not sufficient.3

[4]Costs are awarded to the Crown of $5,746.50.

……………………………..

Downs J

1      AR v Immigration and Protection Tribunal [2017] NZHC 2982.
2      This sum includes disbursements.
3      See, for example, RM v Immigration and Protection Tribunal [2016] NZHC 1701.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of AR v Immigration and Protection Tribunal involved AR, who applied for leave to appeal the High Court's earlier judgment that dismissed his appeal against the Immigration and Protection Tribunal. The Immigration and Protection Tribunal and the Refugee and Protection Officer were the respondents in the case. The legal issues at hand were whether AR had provided sufficient grounds to justify an appeal and, if not, whether the Crown was entitled to costs for resisting the application.

The court considered the procedural history of the case, noting that AR had failed to respond to the case officer's reminders about the impending deadline for filing his reply. AR's claim that he would "speak to his lawyer" and file a reply next month was found to be insufficient, as he did not have a lawyer during the proceedings and the reference to a McKenzie friend did not constitute proper legal representation. The court found AR's lack of engagement in the proceedings to be a significant factor in determining the outcome.

In its judgment, the court awarded costs to the Crown in the amount of $5,746.50, which included disbursements. The court found that AR had not provided any valid reasons to set aside the presumption that the Crown was entitled to costs. The case serves as a reminder that parties must actively engage in legal proceedings and meet deadlines to avoid the imposition of costs against them.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

UNDER	s 249B of the Immigration Act 2009 and the Judicature Amendment Act 1972
IN THE MATTER	of an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal
BETWEEN	AR Applicant
AND	IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL First Respondent REFUGEE AND PROTECTION OFFICER Second Respondent