Prajapati v Immigration and Protection Tribunal

[2020] NZHC 3420

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2020-404-000164 CIV-2020-404-000165

[2020] NZHC 3420

UNDER

Section 245 of the Immigration Act 2009

AND UNDER

Section 247 of the Immigration Act 2009

IN THE MATTER OF

a decision of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, being [2019] NZIPT 600557-559

dated 29 November 2019

BETWEEN

KAMUBEN AMRUTBHAI PRAJAPATI, VIJAYKUMAR AMRUTLAL PRAJAPATI AND GEETABEN VIJAYKUMAR PRAJAPATI

Applicants

AND

THE IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL

First Respondent

AND

MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION

Second Respondent

Hearing:

On the papers

Appearances:

M L Clark for Applicants

S P Connolly and T Witten-Sage for Second Respondent

Judgment:

18 December 2020

COSTS JUDGMENT OF PAUL DAVISON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 18 December 2020 at 4:00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: Vallant Hooker & Partners, Auckland Crown Law Office, Wellington

PRAJAPATI v THE IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2020] NZHC 3420 [18 December 2020]

[1]                 By my judgment of 23 October 2020, I dismissed the applicant’s application for judicial review of the decisions of the first respondent.1

[2]                 I held that the second respondent is entitled to costs and directed the parties to file memoranda. Apart from two aspects of the calculation the parties are agreed that scale category 2B costs apply. The respondent has calculated its costs on a scale 2B basis including disbursements as $13,030.49. The applicants dispute the claim for costs step 13, namely 0.30 days for appearance at the second case management conference before Palmer J on 13 May 2020. The applicants note that the conference duration was for 20 minutes and they submit that the cost allowance should accordingly be based on 0.05 days yielding a figure of $119.50 rather than the $717.00 claimed by the respondent.

[3]                 I shall make that adjustment. The applicants also say that the respondent has claimed taxi fares to and from Auckland Airport and air travel costs for counsel to travel from Wellington to Auckland for the hearing. The applicants say that the proceedings were filed in Auckland and as there is a Crown Law Office in Auckland, counsel from Auckland could have been briefed to appear rather than incurring the costs for Wellington based counsel to appear.

[4]                 In my view it is not unreasonable for Crown Law Office to engage counsel based in its Wellington office which is its principal office and for counsel familiar with the matter to appear at the hearing. I accordingly disallow the applicant’s submission that there should be an adjustment on that account.

Decision

[5]I make an order for costs in favour of the second respondent in the sum of

$11,711.00 together with disbursements of $721.99.

Paul Davison J

1      Prajapati v Immigration & Protection Tribunal [2020] NZHC 2785.