Rafiq v Secretary for Internal Affairs

[2023] NZHC 1188

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-000355

[2023] NZHC 1188

BETWEEN

RAZDAN RAFIQ

Applicant

AND

SECRETARY FOR INTERNAL AFFAIRS AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE FOR

DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS
First Respondents

MINISTER OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Judgment:	17 May 2023

COSTS JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Wednesday, 17 May 2023 at 4 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Crown Law Office, Wellington. Copy to: Applicant.

RAFIQ v SECRETARY FOR INTERNAL AFFAIRS AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE FOR DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS [2023] NZHC 1188 [17 May 2023]

[1]                 The respondents seek costs even though Mr Rafiq was successful in his judicial review action.1 They do so on the basis the case did not need to go to a hearing, as the respondents informed Mr Rafiq on 16 November 2022 there were inadequacies in the Minister’s decision to decline Mr Rafiq citizenship, such it  should be quashed.2    The respondents offered to waive fees in relation to a fresh citizenship application if Mr Rafiq abandoned his action.

[2]                 Mr Rafiq nonetheless insisted it be heard. Among other things, Mr Rafiq sought to persuade the Court to direct the Minister to grant him citizenship, a remedy that was unrealistic. So too Mr Rafiq’s claim for $2,000,000 in damages.

[3]                 Mr Rafiq’s claim succeeded, but only to the extent of the respondents’ concession. So, there did not need to be a hearing; the action could have been addressed by a joint memorandum inviting the Court to quash the decision. I express things this way, rather than the Court simply making orders by consent, as judicial review requires satisfaction on the part of the Court there has been reviewable error. However, in this context, this is a distinction without a difference as a joint memorandum (inviting the Court to quash the decision) would have avoided a hearing, and the respondents’ costs concern it and related preparation post 16 November 2022.

[4]                 Mr Rafiq has not responded to the claim for costs. On 19 April 2023, I issued a Minute saying he was to do so on or before 3 May 2023, and if he did not, I would adjudicate.

[5]I now do so. I award the costs and disbursements sought, a sum of $10,192.33.

……………………………..

Downs J

1      Rafiq v Secretary for Internal Affairs and Chief Executive for Department of Internal Affairs

[2023] NZHC 127.

2      High Court Rules 2016, rr 14.10 and 14.11(3)(b).