NZLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

High Court of New Zealand Decisions

You are here:  NZLII >> Databases >> High Court of New Zealand Decisions >> 2014 >> [2014] NZHC 2350

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

K v Immigration and Protection Tribunal [2014] NZHC 2350 (25 September 2014)

Last Updated: 20 October 2014


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY



CIV-2013-404-003520 [2014] NZHC 2350

UNDER
the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 and
the Immigration Act 2009
IN THE MATTER
of an application for leave to bring judicial review proceedings
BETWEEN
K Plaintiff
AND
IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL
First Defendant
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT Second Defendant


Hearing:
On the papers

Judgment:

25 September 2014




JUDGMENT OF ASHER J (Costs)

This judgment was delivered by me on Thursday, 25 September 2014 at 3.00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.


Registrar/Deputy Registrar







Solicitors:

Meredith Connell, Auckland.



K v IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2014] NZHC 2350 [25 September 2014]

[1] On 1 August 2014 I dismissed K’s application for leave to judicially review a decision of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal. I considered that there was no point of public or general importance and that the plaintiff’s case was hopeless. The issues raised were either points of law or meritless and unreasoned factual assertions.1

[2] The second defendant in a memorandum dated 5 August 2014 seeks costs. The plaintiff has opposed on the basis that he was not legally represented, that awarding costs would subject him to more undue financial hardship, and he asks that the issue of costs be suspended pending consideration of his appeal by the Court of Appeal.

[3] I am not persuaded by these arguments which many unsuccessful litigants could raise. A plaintiff who brings an action and fails is in the ordinary course of events obliged to pay costs, and a lack of legal representation, or a shortage of funds does not displace that. An appeal does not operate as a stay.

[4] I therefore award the second defendant costs and disbursements as set out in the memorandum of 5 August 2014.





...................................

Asher J




















1 K v Immigration and Protection Tribunal [2014] NZHC 1800 at [22].


NZLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2014/2350.html