Bu (India) v Immigration and Protection Tribunal

[2016] NZHC 2207

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.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2015-404-3173 [2016] NZHC 2207

BETWEEN

BU AND BU (INDIA)

Applicants

AND

THE IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL First Respondent

A REFUGEE AND PROTECTION OFFICER

Second Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	R Pidgeon for Applicants M Conway and B Charmley for Second Respondent
Judgment:	19 September 2016

JUDGMENT OF WHATA J AS TO COSTS

This judgment was delivered by me on 19 September 2016 at 2.00 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date: ………………………….

Solicitors:           Pidgeon Law, Auckland

Crown Law, Wellington

BU AND BU (INDIA) v THE IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2016] NZHC 2207 [19

September 2016]

[1]      On 1 July 2016, I declined the applicants’ applications for leave to appeal and to judicially review the decision of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal.  The refugee and protection officer seeks orders for costs on a 2B basis and disbursements of $9,824.80.  I have correspondence from Counsel for the applicants indicating that:

(a)       The female applicant instructs she accepts the quantum on a 2B basis is accurate and that costs should follow the event in the usual way.

(b)He does not have instructions from the male applicant, who is no longer in New Zealand.

[2]      There being no opposition to an award of costs on the usual basis, namely that costs follows the event, there shall be an order against both applicants on a category 2B basis, together with disbursements of $9,824.80.