BP (South Africa) v Refugee and Protection Officer

[2018] NZHC 1679

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2017-404-001607 [2018] NZHC 1679

BETWEEN

BP (SOUTH AFRICA)

Applicants

AND

REFUGEE AND PROTECTION OFFICER Respondent

CIV-2017-404-001659

BETWEEN  BP (SOUTH AFRICA) Applicants

ANDIMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL

First Respondent

ANDREFUGEE AND PROTECTION OFFICER Second Respondent

Hearing:	(On the papers)
Counsel:	Tonderai Mukusha for the Applicants Matthew Mortimer for the Respondents
Judgment:	10 July 2018

[COSTS] JUDGMENT OF MOORE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 10 July 2018 at 1:00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar

Date:

BP (SOUTH AFRICA) v REFUGEE AND PROTECTION OFFICER [2018] NZHC 1679 [10 July 2018]

[1]      In a decision of 20 December 2017 I declined applications by a father and son for leave to appeal against, and judicially review, a decision of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, which dismissed their appeals against the decision of the Refugee and Protection Officer (“RPO”) refusing to recognise them as refugees or protected persons.1

[2]      At the conclusion of my judgment I indicated the RPO, as the successful parties, were entitled to costs.  My preliminary view was costs should be awarded on a 2B basis, and I asked that counsel confer with a view to filing a joint memorandum.

[3]      Counsel did confer and no resolution was reached.  The RPO consequently filed a memorandum on 5 February 2018 seeking costs on a 2B basis and disbursements, totalling $11,420.00.

[4]      That appears to have prompted a change of course; on 29 March 2018, counsel for the applicants filed a memorandum advising they were in agreement with the costs sought by the RPO.

[5]      In that context all that remains is for me to determine whether the costs sought are reasonable.  Having reviewed the memorandum of the RPO, I am satisfied they are, with the exception of one minor matter. Costs are sought for the step taken to seal this costs award, and a disbursement for that step is also sought prospectively.

[6]      This Court is generally reluctant to award costs on costs matters.2  In this case, where costs were ultimately not opposed and the RPO’s costs memorandum was

succinct, I do not consider it would appropriate from depart from that position.

1      BP (South Africa) v Refugee and Protection Officer [2017] NZHC 3259.

2      Jeffreys v Morgenstern [2013] NZHC 1361 at [40].

Result

[7]      I award costs on a 2B basis totalling $10,704.00 and disbursements of $220.

Moore J

Solicitors/Counsel:

Mr Mukusha, Auckland

Mr Mortimer, Auckland