Kumar v Immigration and Protection Tribunal

[2018] NZHC 621

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2017-404-002240

[2018] NZHC 621

UNDER

the Immigration Act 2009, s 247

BETWEEN

SHAWN EDWARD KUMAR

Applicant

AND

IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL

First Respondent

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND
EMPLOYMENT

Second Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Judgment:	9 April 2018

JUDGMENT OF COURTNEY J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Courtney on 9 April 2018 at 3.00 pm

pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules Registrar / Deputy Registrar Date………………………

KUMAR v IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL & OR [2018] NZHC 621 [9 April 2018]

[1]    On 7 March 2018, I dismissed Mr Kumar’s application for judicial review from a decision of the Immigration and  Protection  Tribunal  not  to  accept  for  filing  Mr Kumar’s purported appeal against deportation liability.1 The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, who was the second respondent, now seeks costs and disbursements totalling $5,651.98.

[2]    The costs are sought on a 2A basis. At scale, they would be $11,038.50. Counsel for the Chief Executive advises that the scale costs exceed the actual costs incurred and therefore seeks 50 per cent of scale costs. However, I have not been advised of the actual costs incurred.

[3]    Mr Kumar has filed a memorandum explaining that he is in a very difficult financial situation. He does not have the right to work and has been unemployed for over a year. He has no savings. He has proposed that a costs award of $1,000 would allow him to borrow the money from his daughters.

[4]    I am prepared to make an order at the level suggested by Mr Kumar, for the following reasons. First, without knowing the actual costs incurred by the Chief Executive I cannot make an assessment as to what a reasonable contribution to those costs would be. Secondly, although Mr Kumar failed in his application for judicial review, there were aspects of the case which suggested that Mr Kumar might have misunderstood aspects of his rights under the Immigration Act as a result of the confusing letter from INZ dated 10 April 2017 which, I have assumed, constituted the grant of a temporary entry class visa under s 216(1)(b) but which did not refer to that section nor make clear the very limited nature of the visa that could be granted under that section.

[5]    I therefore make an order in favour of the Chief Executive of costs of $1,000, together with disbursements of $132.73, a total of $1,132.73.

P Courtney J

1      Kumar v Immigration and Protection Tribunal [2018] NZHC 342.