JE (India) v Minister of Immigration

[2021] NZHC 3482

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2021-404-000897

[2021] NZHC 3482

UNDER

Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016

IN THE MATTER OF

an application for Judicial Review

BETWEEN

JE (INDIA)

Applicant

AND

THE MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION

Respondent

Hearing:

On the papers

Counsel:

B Castelino for Applicant

I Clarke and E Cameron for Respondent

Judgment:

16 December 2021

COSTS JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Wylie

On 16 December 2021 at 10.00 am Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel:

Crown Law Office/K Sheppard, Wellington Castlefinn Law Ltd

JE (INDIA) v THE MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION (costs judgment) [2021] NZHC 3482 [16 December 2021]

Introduction

[1]                 I refer to my judgment dated 15 November 2021.1 I declined the applicant’s judicial review application and held that the respondent – the Minister of Immigration

– was entitled to his reasonable costs and disbursements.

[2]                 The Minister has filed a memorandum seeking costs on a 2B basis. The total amount sought is $17,827.82. A schedule of costs, and the basis on which they are claimed, is annexed to the memorandum.

[3]                 An email response has been received from Mr Castelino on behalf of the applicant. He notes that the applicant is impecunious and at the “mercy of well- wishers who may render services pro-bono on humanitarian grounds.” He notes that she is divorced, a victim of family violence and that her close family have abandoned her. He says that her well-wishers are not in a position “to dip in” to pay any costs awarded.

Analysis

[4]                 The Minister was the successful party and costs generally follow the event. The Court has a discretion in awarding costs, but that discretion is not unfettered. The costs regime set out in the rules must apply unless there is good reason to the contrary. Personal circumstances, such as financial hardship, do not generally justify a refusal of or a reduction in costs.2

[5]                 This is not an exceptional case. The applicant is not legally aided. None of the circumstances set out in r 14.7 apply. The determination of costs should be predictable and expeditious. That requirement would be significantly undermined if parties’ financial circumstances were to become a matter of routine inquiry.

1      JE (India) v The Minister of Immigration [2021] NZHC 3073.

2      JE (India) v Immigration and Protection Tribunal [2021] NZHC 774 at [5]; NM (Fiji) v The Minister of Immigration [2020] NZHC 2729 at [8]; BR (Bangladesh) v Chief Executive, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2018] NZHC 902 at (6]; HA v Refugee and Protection Officer [2018] NZHC 1011 at [15]-[16].

[6]                 I have considered the schedule filed by the Minister. As far as I can see, it accurately reflects steps taken and has been correctly calculated. There is no challenge to the schedule by the applicant. Accordingly, I award costs of $17,686.00 to the Minister, together with disbursements of $141.82 – making a total award of

$17,827.82.

Wylie J