Lepcha v Immigration and Protection Tribunal

[2013] NZHC 3227

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV 2013-404-002113 [2013] NZHC 3227

UNDER  the Judicature Amendment Act 1972

IN THE MATTER             of the Immigration Act 2009

BETWEEN  CHHEOGYAL JAH OM SANDYANG LEPCHA

Applicant

ANDIMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL

First Respondent

THE MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION Second Respondent

On the papers.

Judgment:                4 December 2013

JUDGMENT OF ANDREWS J [Costs]

This judgment is delivered by me on 4 December 2013 at 2.30pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

..................................................... Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:

P F Wicks, Barrister, Auckland (Applicant)

Cook Morris Quinn, Auckland – R P Chandra (Applicant) Meredith Connell, Auckland (Second Respondent)

LEPCHA v IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL (COSTS) [2013] NZHC 3227 [4 December

2013]

[1]      The parties have not been able to agree as to costs, following my judgment of

25 September 2013, in which I dismissed the applicant’s application for judicial

review of a decision by the first respondent.

[2]      The second respondent seeks an award of costs, and counsel has provided a calculation  of  costs  on  a  2B  basis,  in  the  sum  of  $9,054.50.    Counsel  for  the applicant does not contest the claim for 2B costs in and of itself, but asks the Court to exercise its discretion to order reduced costs.   In support of the application for reduced costs, Mr Wicks has outlined the applicant’s financial circumstances.  The applicant was out of work for six to seven months up to 1 November 2013, since when he has been in paid employment which will end in April 2014, apparently due to visa conditions.  It is also noted that the applicant and his family have little in the way of assets.  There is a car valued at $6,000, and three bank accounts with very small  balances  in  them.    It  is  submitted  that  the  applicant  and  his  family  are struggling financially, made more pressing by the fact that a new baby is expected in April 2014, and the applicant’s partner will then spend several months on maternity leave.

[3]      As counsel for the applicant acknowledged, it is a general principle in respect of costs that the unsuccessful party should pay costs to the successful party.   The Court may, however, refuse to make an order for costs, or reduce costs otherwise payable, where a reason exists which justifies the Court in doing so.

[4]      In  the  present  case,  I  am  satisfied  that  an  order  for  reduced  costs  is appropriate.  I am not satisfied that no order for costs should be made.

[5]      The applicant is ordered to pay costs in the sum of $4,500.

Andrews  J