Singh v Immigration and Protection Tribunal

[2014] NZHC 2065

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2013-404-1982 [2014] NZHC 2065

BETWEEN

AVINASH SINGH

Applicant

AND

THE IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL First Respondent

THE MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION Second Respondent

Hearing:	On the Papers
Appearances:	Applicant in Person R E Savage for Second Respondent
Judgment:	29 August 2014

JUDGMENT OF COOPER J [ON COSTS]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Cooper on

29 August 2014 at 11.30 a.m., pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:

Solicitors:

Meredith Connell, Auckland

Copy to:

A Singh, 1/36 Harding Avenue, Mt Wellington, Auckland

SINGH v THE IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2014] NZHC 2065 [29 August 2014]

[1]      On 29 August 2013 I delivered a judgment1 in which I granted the appellant, Mr  Singh,  leave  to  appeal  from  a  decision  of  the  Immigration  and  Protection Tribunal, confirming a decision of an immigration officer to decline an application made by the appellant for residence.  However, I dismissed the appeal, as well as an application for review considered in the same hearing.

[2]      Subsequently, the appellant made an application for leave to appeal to the

Court of Appeal.  On 30 April 2014 I heard the application and refused leave.2

[3]      The second respondent now seeks costs.  Calculated on a schedule 2 band B

basis, the sums sought are respectively $5,074.50 for appeal and judicial review, and

$5,870.50 in respect of the application for leave to appeal.   However, as the total costs incurred exceed actual costs, the sum sought is reduced to $8,655 together with a further $200 in respect of disbursements (filing fees).

[4]      Mr Singh represented himself in respect of the application for leave to appeal. He has filed a memorandum in opposition to the application for costs in which he raises inability to pay, notes that he has been unable to work because he does not have a work permit and is reliant on his father and charity for his survival and suggests that if an award of costs is made his young son will suffer.  He says that he would be willing to pay the costs, if he was allowed to work.

[5]      Mr Singh has also asked that the award of costs be delayed until his further application for leave direct from the Court of Appeal is determined.

[6]      As the proceeding in the High Court has effectively been determined it is appropriate that costs be fixed at this point.   Mr Singh has not engaged with the calculation  of  costs,  and  the  only points  he  raises  are  essentially based  on  his inability to pay.  While I have some sympathy with the position that he is in, it is not possible to articulate a proper reason for declining an award of costs having regard to

the relevant provisions of the High Court Rules.

1      Singh v The Minister of Immigration [2013] NZHC 2229.

2      Singh v The Immigration and Protection Tribunal [2014] NZHC 868.

[7]      There is no doubt that r 14.2(a) applies and costs should follow the event. There is jurisdiction under r 14.7 to refuse or reduce costs, but of the paragraphs in that rule the only vehicle by which there could be a reduction of costs would be paragraph (g), under which the Court has the broad power to reduce costs if “some other reason exists” justifying the Court taking that step.

[8]      Acting under that paragraph in the circumstances of this case would create a precedent of potentially very wide application and ultimately would not be justified having regard to the other, more specific provisions of the relevant rules.

[9]      In the result, I order that the applicant is to pay the second respondent’s costs

in the sum of $8,655, together with disbursements of $200.