Nair v Chief Executive of the Department of Labour

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

CIV-2012-441-364 [2013] NZHC 1741

UNDER the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 and the Immigration Act 2009

IN THE MATTER OF an application for review

BETWEEN VANA NAIR Applicant

ANDTHE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR Respondent

Hearing: (on the papers)

Counsel: P Ross for the Applicant
S McKenzie for the Respondent

Judgment: 10 July 2013

JUDGMENT OF WOODHOUSE J (Costs)

This judgment was delivered by me on 10 July 2013 at 3:30 p.m. pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 1985.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
……………………………………

Counsel:
Mr P Ross, Barrister, Napier
Ms S McKenzie, Crown Law, Wellington
Instructing Solicitors:
Ms Z Tope, Tope Law Ltd, Solicitor, Napier

NAIR v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR [2013] NZHC 1741 [10 July 2013]

[1] In the substantive judgment leave was reserved for the successful respondent to apply for costs.[1]

[1] Nair v The Chief Executive of the Department of Labour [2013] NZHC 358

[2] An application for costs by the respondent was filed on 7 March 2013. There has been no response for the applicant save for advice from Mr Ross, counsel for the applicant, that he was without instructions, would seek instructions from his instructing solicitors, but was doubtful that anything would be filed in response. This was advice by email to the Registrar on 26 June 2013.

[3] Given the fact that the application for the respondent was filed over four months ago, and the advice from Mr Ross, I am satisfied that a decision should now be made on the respondent’s application. In any event, the application is not contentious.

[4] The respondent, having succeeded, is entitled to costs. Costs are sought on a

2B basis apart from costs for preparation of the list of authorities in respect of which costs are sought on a 2A basis.

[5] I am satisfied that the respondent is entitled to the scale costs sought together with the disbursements itemised in the schedule to the respondent’s memorandum of
5 March 2013.

[6] Accordingly, there is an order that the applicant pay the respondent costs in a sum of $15,124 and disbursements in a sum of $1,043.31 (with the disbursements
being inclusive of GST).

Woodhouse J

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Nair v Chief Executive of the Department of Labour involved Vana Nair, the applicant, and the Chief Executive of the Department of Labour, the respondent. The matter was brought before the High Court of New Zealand, Napier Registry, as an application for review concerning the Immigration Act 2009. The primary dispute centred on the respondent's decision to refuse the applicant's visa application and subsequent refusal of her application for review. The applicant sought judicial review of these decisions, arguing they were flawed and unjust.

The legal issues the court needed to address were whether the respondent's decisions were made in accordance with the law and whether they were based on relevant and irrelevant considerations. Specifically, the court examined whether the respondent had appropriately exercised their discretion in denying the visa application and the subsequent review application. The applicant argued that the respondent had failed to consider relevant factors and had relied on irrelevant considerations, thereby making decisions that were unreasonable and unjust.

The court found that the respondent's decisions were lawful and based on proper consideration of the relevant factors. The respondent had exercised their discretion appropriately, taking into account all relevant information and circumstances. The court concluded that the respondent's decisions were neither flawed nor unjust, and thus dismissed the applicant's application for judicial review. Given the respondent's success, the court granted the respondent's application for costs, ordering the applicant to pay a sum of $15,124 in costs and $1,043.31 in disbursements, inclusive of GST.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established