Devi v Immigration and Protection Tribunal

[2015] NZHC 2830

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV 2015-404-1152 [2015] NZHC 2830

BETWEEN

SANITA PRATIKA DEVI

Applicant

AND

IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL

First Respondent

MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION Second Respondent

Hearing:	(on the papers)
Counsel:	F C Deliu for Applicant No appearance by or on behalf of First Respondent D J Collins for Second Respondent
Judgment:	13 November 2015

JUDGMENT (NO. 2) OF HEATH J

This judgment was delivered by me on 13 November 2015 at 4.00pm pursuant to

Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland
Counsel:

F C Deliu, Auckland

DEVI v IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2015] NZHC 2830 [13 November 2015]

[1]      On 7 October 2015, I gave judgment on a preliminary point arising out of Ms Devi’s application for leave to appeal against a decision of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, and her application for judicial review of the same decision.  As a result of my conclusion on the preliminary point, I dismissed both applications.1

[2]      Costs were reserved.  I have now received memoranda from counsel.  No oral hearing has been requested.

[3]      Counsel for the Minister of Immigration seeks costs on a 2B basis, together with reasonable disbursements. The costs and disbursements sought total $7356.  Mr Deliu resists that application, or submits that they should be ordered on a reduced basis.   His submission is made on the basis that an issue of public interest arose concerning  the  service  of  decisions  of  the Tribunal,  and  the  effect  that  has  on potential applicants for leave to appeal and/or judicial review.   He points to the conflicting authority with which I dealt in my judgment: Cao v Immigration and

Protection Tribunal2and X v Immigration and Protection Tribunal.3

[4]      I consider that there was merit in obtaining a judgment of this Court to resolve any apparent differences between those two judgments.    In those circumstances, costs should lie where they fall.

[5]      Mr Deliu commented in his submission in support of costs that my judgment did not indicate appreciation of an argument that the relevant “memorandum” had to be provided after notice of the appeal had been given.  While I may not have stated my position sufficiently clearly in my reasons for judgment, I had appreciated the

point but preferred the view expressed by Faire J in X.4

[6]      Mr Collins, for the Minister, has raised a question involving “possible slips” in my judgment of 7 October 2015.   I thank Mr Collins for raising the point.   I acknowledge that the two dates to which I referred in para [24] of the judgment

should have read “27 February 2014”.

1      Devi v Immigration and Protection Tribunal [2015] NZHC 2452.

2      Cao v Immigration and Protection Tribunal [2014] NZHC 259.

3      X v Immigration and Protection Tribunal [2014] NZHC 1647.

4 Ibid, at para [10]. See also, Devi v Immigration and Protection Tribunal [2015] NZHC 2452 at para [29].

[7]      I do not propose to direct correction and reissue of the judgment because the true date is readily understood by the context in which para [24] appears.  Given the reference to the Tribunal’s decision of 26 February 2014, receipt could only have been on 27 February 2014.  That is also consistent with the background set out in

para [3] of my judgment of 7 October 2015.

P R Heath J

Delivered at 4.00pm on 13 November 2015