M v Refugee Status Appeals Authority (costs) HC Auckland CIV-2010-404-003298

[2010] NZHC 2448

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF PLAINTIFF.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2010-404-003298

BETWEEN  M Plaintiff

ANDREFUGEE STATUS APPEALS AUTHORITY

First Defendant

ANDCHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR Second Defendant

Judgment:      21 December 2010

JUDGMENT OF COURTNEY J AS TO COSTS

This judgment was delivered by Justice Courtney on 21 December 2010 at 11:30 am

pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Date………………………

Solicitors:           Crown Law, P O Box 2858, Wellington 6140

Fax: [phone] – P McCarthy

M V REFUGEE STATUS APPEALS AUTHORITY HC AK CIV-2010-404-003298 [21 December 2010]

[1]      In my decision 17 December 2010 I dismissed the plaintiff’s application for judicial review.  The defendant has applied for costs of $11,624.09, the calculation for which is contained in counsel’s memorandum 23 September 2010.  The plaintiff resists an award of costs being made on the basis that an award of costs would lead to undue hardship.   He has outlined his financial situation in a memorandum.   It shows a very modest situation with a small amount in the bank, a modest motor vehicle, liabilities to Inland Revenue and a modest income.

[2]      One of the general principles applicable to the award of costs under R 14 of the High Court Rules is that the unsuccessful party should pay costs.  R 14.7 does permit the Court to refuse to make an order of costs or to reduce costs that would otherwise be payable in certain specific circumstances, none of which apply in this case.  R 14.7(g), however, does permit the Court to refuse to make an order or to reduce costs otherwise payable where:

Some other reason exists which justifies the court refusing costs or reducing costs despite the principle that the determination of costs should be predictable and expeditious.

[3]      In this case the fact that the plaintiff is in modest circumstances does not, in itself, justify departing from the general principle that costs should follow the event and there should be a strong element of predictability in the awarding of costs. However, I do consider it appropriate to make a reduction in the costs that would otherwise be awarded in recognition of the plaintiff’s circumstances.

[4]      I make an order of costs in the defendant’s favour of $5,000.

P Courtney J