BC (Philippines) v Immigration and Protection Tribunal

NOTE: THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE APPELLANT AND OF HIS CLAIM OR STATUS

MUST BE MAINTAINED PURSUANT TO S 151 OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT 2009. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2018-404-000296

[2018] NZHC 3019

BETWEEN BC (Philippines) Applicant

AND

IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL

First Respondent

THE REFUGEE AND PROTECTION OFFICER

Second Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Judgment:

21 November 2018

JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J [COSTS]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Wylie On 21 November 2018 at 10.00am
Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel:
Auckland Community Law Centre, Auckland Crown Law, Wellington

BC (Philippines) v IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2018] NZHC 3019 [21 November 2018]

[1] I refer to my reserved judgment issued on 19 October 2018.1 I declined BC’s application for leave to appeal and recorded that the second respondent – the Refugee and Protection Officer – was entitled to costs on a 2B basis, and to reasonable disbursements.2 I put in place provision for the exchange of memoranda in the event that there was any disagreement regarding costs.3

[2] I have received a memorandum from counsel for the Refugee and Protection Officer. They advise that they provided BC with a schedule of costs and disbursements which were sought, but that counsel appearing for BC was unable to obtain instructions from her client.

[3] The time fixed for the filing of a response by BC has now expired. The Refugee and Protection Officer seeks orders on a 2B basis, in the sum of $9,700.50. In addition, disbursements for one counsel only are sought. Disbursements total
$1,117.72.

[4] I am satisfied that the costs and disbursements sought are appropriate, and that the costs have been properly calculated on a 2B basis, in accordance with the High Court Rules. Accordingly, I make an order for costs and disbursements against BC and in favour of the Refugee and Protection Officer in the sum of $10,818.22.

Wylie J

1 BC (Philippines) v Immigration and Protection Tribunal [2018] NZHC 2722.
2 At [38]-[39].
3 At [39].

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of BC (Philippines) v Immigration and Protection Tribunal, the applicant, BC, a Philippine national, sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal. BC's application was dismissed by Wylie J, who also awarded costs to the Refugee and Protection Officer, the second respondent in the case. The case was heard on the papers, and the judgment was delivered on 21 November 2018. The central issue for the court was whether BC was entitled to leave to appeal the decision of the tribunal and, if not, whether the Refugee and Protection Officer was entitled to costs.

The court found that BC's application for leave to appeal was without merit, and thus declined the application. The court noted that BC's counsel was unable to obtain instructions from BC regarding the costs and disbursements sought by the Refugee and Protection Officer. Given that BC did not respond to the schedule of costs and disbursements provided, the court concluded that the costs and disbursements sought were appropriate and properly calculated. The court ordered that BC pay the costs and disbursements to the Refugee and Protection Officer in the sum of $10,818.22.

The court's reasoning was based on the fact that BC did not respond to the schedule of costs and disbursements provided, and therefore, the costs and disbursements sought were deemed appropriate. The court found that the costs and disbursements were properly calculated on a 2B basis, in accordance with the High Court Rules. The court also noted that the second respondent was entitled to costs on a 2B basis, and to reasonable disbursements. The court's decision was based on the fact that BC did not challenge the costs and disbursements sought, and therefore, the court was satisfied that the costs and disbursements were appropriate. The court's decision was in line with the provisions of the High Court Rules, which provide for the awarding of costs to the prevailing party in appropriate circumstances.

In conclusion, the court declined BC's application for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the Refugee and Protection Officer. The court found that the costs and disbursements sought were appropriate and properly calculated, and ordered BC to pay the costs and disbursements to the Refugee and Protection Officer in the sum of $10,818.22. The court's decision was based on the fact that BC did not challenge the costs and disbursements sought, and therefore, the court was satisfied that the costs and disbursements were appropriate. The court's decision was in line with the provisions of the High Court Rules, which provide for the awarding of costs to the prevailing party in appropriate circumstances.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established